"Actually Allowing Businesses To Refuse Service Based On Sexual Orientation"

[lazarus]

However I would pay little attention to the pretended offense of a black person describing himself using that word and then claiming to be offended because I did.

The difference is obvious. You are intelligent enough to understand.

[debbym]

Quote:

Don't like the word,offended by it,then stop using it to describe yourself.

i understand it is ok to do this, kind of like,

i can criticize myself but i am not comfortable when you do it,

or i can make fun of my sister but no one else can.

those in the in share a common understanding those on the outside do not understand, so they cannot attach the same meaning to the word.

this is not the only example of this.

a clique of girls can call each other crazy, or say i hate you but it does not have the same connotation at all for those outside of their group to say it to them. outsiders do not have the same friendly context.

this is common to social groups, and families. i can yell at my kids but no one else better even think about it. i can hug them but strangers cannot. words are another communication like behaviors.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Why do any of us think it is a virtue to be tolerant of what God has condemned? In reading some of the posts in this thread you would think that the homosexual lifestyle is one that should be honored and protected from criticism rather than condemned as a pathogenic perversion of human sexuality and a sin that will keep one from the inheritance of eternal life.Should we not have a burden that those practicing this lifestyle repent and be saved?

I think it is counterproductive to use the "Q' word, as we are trying to win souls over, not alienate them, However,it is amazing to see how some are more offended by those who use the "Q" word or those who would dare to rebuke and warn the sinner than they are by those who practice the perverted lifestyle that is an abomination to God.

You just do not get it. You do not have the slightest understanding of what has been said.

[bonnie]

The difference is obvious. You are intelligent enough to understand.

If I had a black person in my home describing himself using that word I would explain that is not a word that I allow. If they persisted they would be asked to leave as anyone using it in a negative fashion.

No one group owns a certain word and can dictate it's use

[bonnie]

Quote:

Don't like the word,offended by it,then stop using it to describe yourself.

i understand it is ok to do this, kind of like,

i can criticize myself but i am not comfortable when you do it,

or i can make fun of my sister but no one else can.

those in the in share a common understanding those on the outside do not understand, so they cannot attach the same meaning to the word.

this is not the only example of this.

a clique of girls can call each other crazy, or say i hate you but it does not have the same connotation at all for those outside of their group to say it to them. outsiders do not have the same friendly context.

this is common to social groups, and families. i can yell at my kids but no one else better even think about it. i can hug them but strangers cannot. words are another communication like behaviors.

But what gives anyone or any group the right to determine how a word should be used.

Group A can use this word,group B is forbidden?

The gay community has no more right to demand to go thru life and not be offended than I do.

I would not deliberately offend someone by choosing certain words,but I don't have the right to demand that of others

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

The difference is obvious. You are intelligent enough to understand.

If I had a black person in my home describing himself using that word I would explain that is not a word that I allow. If they persisted they would be asked to leave as anyone using it in a negative fashion.

No one group owns a certain word and can dictate it's use

White people owned and used the word for many years and now the power has shifted. Of course you have the right to dictate the use of the word in your house but the use of the [theN-word] is not a crime. You can use it if you like but be prepared for the consequences.

[Planey]

It is interesting that some people think no particular group can redefine a word to suit themselves.

Yet the word 'gay' has been used without exception in this thread (and elsewhere) as a synonym for 'homosexual'.

[bonnie]

It is interesting that some people think no particular group can redefine a word to suit themselves.

Yet the word 'gay' has been used without exception in this thread (and elsewhere) as a synonym for 'homosexual'.

Can't use that word either.I use gay because it is only three letters long Lazy

But if you don't want to offend you shouldn't use homosexual

http://www.joekort.com/homosexual_n_word.html

Although the term homosexuality is still used, describing gays and lesbians as "homosexuals" is as offensive today as the words Negro, colored, or crippled. The correct words are gays and lesbians or GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) community.

Terms like sexual preference and alternative lifestyle are no longer considered appropriate. Preference implies that sexuality is a choice-which it's not-and for gays and lesbians, heterosexuality is the "alternative" lifestyle. The correct term is sexual and romantic orientation.

[bonnie]

White people owned and used the word for many years and now the power has shifted. Of course you have the right to dictate the use of the word in your house but the use of the [theN-word] is not a crime. You can use it if you like but be prepared for the consequences.

So it is about power.Glad you confirmed that.Have I implied anywhere that I would use the word? Tit for tat is always helpful and settles a lot of problems

As I have the right to dictate on my property,this man did to, regardless of how anyone feels about his actions.

He probably is really tickled that people reacted to what he did.

Gave him his fifteen minutes of fame.Doubtful he was actually trying to threaten anyone,had that been the case he could easily have hung a noose in the middle of the night in his neighbors yard

[lazarus]

.Doubtful he was actually trying to threaten anyone

Let me try to understand you. When he hung the noose what message was he trying to communicate?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

.Doubtful he was actually trying to threaten anyone

Let me try to understand you. When he hung the noose what message was he trying to communicate?

I think the guy was after his fifteen minutes of fame.I am sure he is delighted if someone takes it as an actual threat.

Was it right,smart or a good thing to do,Of course not. I am glad he doesn't live next door to me. He sounds like a total moron.

If he was actually threatening someone it would not have been in his own yard.

Someone else would have woken up to that in their yard. He gets his response and is perfectly legal.

As wrong as I think he was,I would hate to see it come down to a law telling me what I could have in my yard.

[lazarus]

Let me rephrase. When someone who supports the KKK puts a noose in their yard what are they trying to communicate?

[bonnie]

Let me rephrase. When someone who supports the KKK puts a noose in their yard what are they trying to communicate?

I agree,this is exactly the reaction I am sure he wants.

The KKK is not an illegal org.,just as the Nazi party in the US.

I am quite sure they want to communicate the very same against Jews etc.

Communicating that I am idiot and hate or wish ill will towards those of another skin color,race etc is not illegal.

[lazarus]

I agree,

What do you agree with ?

Quote:

this is exactly the reaction I am sure he wants.

The KKK is not an illegal org.,just as the Nazi party in the US.

I am quite sure they want to communicate the very same against Jews etc.

Communicating that I am idiot and hate or wish ill will towards those of another skin color,race etc is not illegal.

Terroristic threats are illegal and this should be considered as such.

[bonnie]

What do you agree with ?

Why won't you answer the question? What is a man who is a supporter of the KKK saying when he puts a noose in his yard?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

back to the bakery that refused to bake the wedding cake for the lesbian couple...

I can sorta see the points on both sides of the issue.

Yes, the bakery *was* a public enterprise. They *did* sell general merchandise, ie generic cakes, cookies, and pastries, to anyone, including obvious gay individuals. And they sold the baked goods without malice.

However, the wedding cake was different, as it was *not* generic. It was for a lesbian couple's wedding. The realization came when the couple designated that they wanted the bakery to place two female "brides" as the wedding cake topper. The couple could have just stated to leave the top empty where the decoration would be, and have a friend place them when the cake was delivered. It's completely optional for a couple to have the cake topper placed by the bakery or by someone else not connected to the bakery.

OTOH, nobody should be refused general services on the basis of sexual orientation (or any other social, economic, or biological manifestation).

I have a gay cousin who married her partner. She told me that they would have just gone to a different bakery if such an issue had come up... they'd rather complement and endorse a bakery whose service and products they loved, than get into a tangle with one who catered only to specific moral views. It's not like there weren't any other fabulous bakeries in the area....

[Naomi]

Terroristic threats are illegal and this should be considered as such.

Agreed ... and that should equally apply to all groups

[bonnie]

Terroristic threats are illegal and this should be considered as such.

Agreed ... and that should equally apply to all groups

Intolerance for terroristic threats go one way. What you experienced was far more up close and personal. Notice the tepid response to what you experienced.

[bonnie]

back to the bakery that refused to bake the wedding cake for the lesbian couple...

I can sorta see the points on both sides of the issue.

Yes, the bakery *was* a public enterprise. They *did* sell general merchandise, ie generic cakes, cookies, and pastries, to anyone, including obvious gay individuals. And they sold the baked goods without malice.

However, the wedding cake was different, as it was *not* generic. It was for a lesbian couple's wedding. The realization came when the couple designated that they wanted the bakery to place two female "brides" as the wedding cake topper. The couple could have just stated to leave the top empty where the decoration would be, and have a friend place them when the cake was delivered. It's completely optional for a couple to have the cake topper placed by the bakery or by someone else not connected to the bakery.

OTOH, nobody should be refused general services on the basis of sexual orientation (or any other social, economic, or biological manifestation).

I have a gay cousin who married her partner. She told me that they would have just gone to a different bakery if such an issue had come up... they'd rather complement and endorse a bakery whose service and products they loved, than get into a tangle with one who catered only to specific moral views. It's not like there weren't any other fabulous bakeries in the area....

What you suggest would not have achieved their goal.Tolerance for the beliefs of another is not newsworthy.

Hard to play victim if no one knows you are.

You can be sure that those that have businesses are watching closely. Not to many would lay it all on the line for their personal convictions. I wonder how many SDA's would?

I am not saying that all SDA's must view all issues the same,but would there be any support by fellow church members,those that preach "tolerance"? Not even that they may do the same but they understood and respected a decision different than what they may come to?

Or would there be the same sermonizing tone of "tolerance"

[M. T. Cross]

Why do any of us think it is a virtue to be tolerant of what God has condemned? In reading some of the posts in this thread you would think that the homosexual lifestyle is one that should be honored and protected from criticism rather than condemned as a pathogenic perversion of human sexuality and a sin that will keep one from the inheritance of eternal life.Should we not have a burden that those practicing this lifestyle repent and be saved?

[lazarus]

Quote:

Notice the tepid response to what you experienced.

Who responded tepidly? I thought those that responded gave responses that were compassionate and out of concern. I didn't see any tepid responses.

[lazarus]

Agreed ... and that should equally apply to all groups

Like I said before, Muslims are not the only terrorists.

[bonnie]

Who responded tepidly? I thought those that responded gave responses that were compassionate and out of concern. I didn't see any tepid responses.

I was actually waiting for you to respond.Taking the same offense to these little thug wanna be's as you did the man hanging the noose.

[bonnie]

No you should not. You should have a burden to live your life in accordance to your beliefs. To live a life that sets an example. If you truly think that homosexuality is a "pathogenic perversion of human sexuality and a sin" then make sure you never sleep with someone of your same gender. You certainly are entitled to your thoughts on the matter but your entitlement ends at your front door. You are not entitled to tell other people how they should live their lives.

The topic of this thread is not about telling people how they should live.

And going back to the origin the baker made no attempt to tell others how to live.

He quietly followed his conscience,which there seems to be little "tolerance" for on this forum.

He did not make the media circus out of this.The lesbian couple that wanted to make an example of this man did.

[lazarus]

I was actually waiting for you to respond.Taking the same offense to these little thug wanna be's as you did the man hanging the noose.

My response was not tepid. I did not respond at all. I wasn't offended that the thug who flew a flag and hung a noose. Why should I be. Were you offended by his actions? My point was about how a particular organization is free to operate despite its proven history of terrorism. Making the point that all people express prejudice is true but it at best tangential.