NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[The Rich Port]

The article is a 1995 review of the research on the basis of homosexuality from the NY Review of Books. It is in no way a peer-reviewed article proving that homosexuality is a choice. And 18 years is a long time in medical and psychological research.

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

... What research?

The garbage compiled in that article is not research.

Probably because the people originally conducted that "research" are too fucking lazy to do it again or CAN'T because the results of the "research" are non-reproducible and would end up making them look like morons.

[The Black Forrest]

There's also a difference between gender, race, and sexual orientation vs. skinhead and Nazi ideologies. Ideologies can be chosen; you can chose to be a Nazi or a Skinhead. You can't chose to be male or female (though you can change your body to match your gender); to be black, white, or Asian; or to be gay, straight, bi, pan, or anything else -sexual.

You can say no to someone protected by civil rights laws, just not based on their protected status. You can't refuse to serve a gay man a sandwich just because he's gay; you can refuse to serve him a sandwich because he's, for example, being a nuisance to other customers.

And before you try it, "being gay" does not count as being a nuisance.

From a genetic standpoint I can see non-discrimination, however they have proven Gay is a choice. It may have deep rooted psychological connections as to why such a choice was made. However it is proven to be a sexual preference choice. As to the choice itself and anti-discrimination laws I can see where from a legal standpoint, there remains many key issues which need to be addressed. Mainly this has to do with recognition of partner status in decision processes, in tax laws, and inheritance estate laws. It is much more about the government recognizing the partner status and proving equal standing under law than not being served some sandwich in some remote shop somewhere. When the federal government recognizes a gay couples rights to make decisions in a hospital room in the same way any other spouse can. When the the government recognizes that the will bequeathing an estate to a gay partner who has lived together for 30 plus years cannot be challenged by the deceased family. Wherein the surviving partner is treated just like any other spouse in regards to the estate. Then I might agree the gov has some kind of say in a business refusing to serve someone on ideological grounds. Even then I believe this should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Oh. You can't defend the discrimination so you are going to use the Religious BS of homosexuality is choice. Sad.

[Australasia]

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

A policy statement by the APA is going to carry a hell of a lot more weight than a collection of articles published 18 years ago. One represents the current consensus of the scientific community, the other is hopelessly out of date and was compiled by one mane (who may have just been really good at hiding his biases) and represents his opinion alone.

Also refer to the RCP's statements, which pretty much reflects what global scientific community is saying:

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

What rehashing? The world's scientific community has already concluded that homosexuality is normal, natural, innate, and immutable.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

End of story. Period.

[The Black Forrest]

I think you should go back and read that article again. You may have missed a little bit of it. Maybe 75% of it or so. Happy reading.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... eview.html

And they say he misrepresented the studies:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

[HappyShark]

Peanut gallery comments from those who have not even read the article?

[HappyShark]

http://www.queerbychoice.com/unsafelecturers.html
http://www.queerbychoice.com/pflag.html

PFLAG Former National
Position on Choice

This statement denying the possibility of choice was passed in 1989 but officially repealed on October 28, 2000, as a result of over a year of intensive email correspondence between Gayle Madwin and Frank Aqueno of QueerByChoice and the PFLAG National office, as well as one to one email correspondence between Gayle Madwin and representatives of virtually every PFLAG chapter in the United States. We're glad to see it finally repealed, and we hope to see a new statement issued within a few months which will specifically indicate that all opinions and experiences with regard to choice or lack thereof, and biological causes or lack thereof, should be treated with respect by all PFLAG chapters.
PFLAG Former National Position Statement
(repealed 10/28/00)

We who are friends of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons have learned that they come from families from all corners of the earth, from every culture, religion, and ethnic group. Their sexual orientation is neither chosen nor something they are taught to be.

There is no pattern to the kinds of families they come from, whether they had dominant or submissive mothers, weak or strong fathers, single parent homes or "model" families.

We who are parents have learned to be free of any burden of guilt for our children's sexual orientation, and we recognize their expression of love as natural for them, and moral.

We view the rejection of a gay child by his or her family as a tragedy. We share this stance with you because we are members of a close-knit family who are pro-family in every sense, and we affirm 'traditional values'. We respect the truth; we recognize the reality of individual difference; we honor the right of each person to be who they authentically are. We love and affirm our children with pride and are committed to their entitlement to full civil and human rights.

http://www.queerbychoice.com/position1.html

----------------------------------------

and for those of you who still do not have a clue at what i am pointing at the following says it pretty clearly:

What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?
- See more at: http://www.pflagatl.org/2012/01/gay-won ... F2Mlm.dpuf


---------------------------------
then of course there is also PFOX, but some of you will probably want to cry foul on that one. It is presented because this organization is fighting for equal right for former homosexuals. Yes even former homosexuals are heavily discriminated against, they get the double whammy of being discriminated against by not only society in general but by the members of the Gay community too.

http://pfox.org/default.html

-----------------------------------

I repeat my quest which is at the core of all this: When do we simply respect choice???

[Farnhamia]

http://www.queerbychoice.com/unsafelecturers.html
http://www.queerbychoice.com/pflag.html

PFLAG Former National
Position on Choice

This statement denying the possibility of choice was passed in 1989 but officially repealed on October 28, 2000, as a result of over a year of intensive email correspondence between Gayle Madwin and Frank Aqueno of QueerByChoice and the PFLAG National office, as well as one to one email correspondence between Gayle Madwin and representatives of virtually every PFLAG chapter in the United States. We're glad to see it finally repealed, and we hope to see a new statement issued within a few months which will specifically indicate that all opinions and experiences with regard to choice or lack thereof, and biological causes or lack thereof, should be treated with respect by all PFLAG chapters.
PFLAG Former National Position Statement
(repealed 10/28/00)

We who are friends of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons have learned that they come from families from all corners of the earth, from every culture, religion, and ethnic group. Their sexual orientation is neither chosen nor something they are taught to be.

There is no pattern to the kinds of families they come from, whether they had dominant or submissive mothers, weak or strong fathers, single parent homes or "model" families.

We who are parents have learned to be free of any burden of guilt for our children's sexual orientation, and we recognize their expression of love as natural for them, and moral.

We view the rejection of a gay child by his or her family as a tragedy. We share this stance with you because we are members of a close-knit family who are pro-family in every sense, and we affirm 'traditional values'. We respect the truth; we recognize the reality of individual difference; we honor the right of each person to be who they authentically are. We love and affirm our children with pride and are committed to their entitlement to full civil and human rights.

http://www.queerbychoice.com/position1.html

----------------------------------------

and for those of you who still do not have a clue at what i am pointing at the following says it pretty clearly:

What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?
- See more at: http://www.pflagatl.org/2012/01/gay-won ... F2Mlm.dpuf


---------------------------------
then of course there is also PFOX, but some of you will probably want to cry foul on that one. It is presented because this organization is fighting for equal right for former homosexuals. Yes even former homosexuals are heavily discriminated against, they get the double whammy of being discriminated against by not only society in general but by the members of the Gay community too.

http://pfox.org/default.html

-----------------------------------

I repeat my quest which is at the core of all this: When do we simply respect choice???

ALl of which has what to do with the topic at hand? It does seem as if we've strayed.

[HappyShark]

http://www.queerbychoice.com/unsafelecturers.html
http://www.queerbychoice.com/pflag.html

PFLAG Former National
Position on Choice

This statement denying the possibility of choice was passed in 1989 but officially repealed on October 28, 2000, as a result of over a year of intensive email correspondence between Gayle Madwin and Frank Aqueno of QueerByChoice and the PFLAG National office, as well as one to one email correspondence between Gayle Madwin and representatives of virtually every PFLAG chapter in the United States. We're glad to see it finally repealed, and we hope to see a new statement issued within a few months which will specifically indicate that all opinions and experiences with regard to choice or lack thereof, and biological causes or lack thereof, should be treated with respect by all PFLAG chapters.
PFLAG Former National Position Statement
(repealed 10/28/00)

We who are friends of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons have learned that they come from families from all corners of the earth, from every culture, religion, and ethnic group. Their sexual orientation is neither chosen nor something they are taught to be.

There is no pattern to the kinds of families they come from, whether they had dominant or submissive mothers, weak or strong fathers, single parent homes or "model" families.

We who are parents have learned to be free of any burden of guilt for our children's sexual orientation, and we recognize their expression of love as natural for them, and moral.

We view the rejection of a gay child by his or her family as a tragedy. We share this stance with you because we are members of a close-knit family who are pro-family in every sense, and we affirm 'traditional values'. We respect the truth; we recognize the reality of individual difference; we honor the right of each person to be who they authentically are. We love and affirm our children with pride and are committed to their entitlement to full civil and human rights.

http://www.queerbychoice.com/position1.html

----------------------------------------

and for those of you who still do not have a clue at what i am pointing at the following says it pretty clearly:

What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?
- See more at: http://www.pflagatl.org/2012/01/gay-won ... F2Mlm.dpuf


---------------------------------
then of course there is also PFOX, but some of you will probably want to cry foul on that one. It is presented because this organization is fighting for equal right for former homosexuals. Yes even former homosexuals are heavily discriminated against, they get the double whammy of being discriminated against by not only society in general but by the members of the Gay community too.

http://pfox.org/default.html

-----------------------------------

I repeat my quest which is at the core of all this: When do we simply respect choice???

ALl of which has what to do with the topic at hand? It does seem as if we've strayed.

We were discussing choices people make, and how these should be respected. Not just the choices made by a "protected" group, but choices made by people in general. At least this was my position and opinion. In relation to the topic this was a choice made by the photographer, and a lack of respect vis a vis her choice was clearly demonstrated. To argue legality is futile, because I will simply point you toward marijuana statistics and ask you how are those laws working out? Businesses adapt, as shown with Obamacare and the hours being cut by large corporations seeking to avoid the mandates.

We cannot change people this is just a fact of life. We may be able to get them to conform for a period of time, usually by ensuring a penalty outweighs the reward of acting in a certain manner. There are however instance where this Reward / Penalty paradigm are simply not going to work. In the instance of people accepting other people, they either will or won't. No amount of arguing or stacks of research is going to change a person to suddenly begin accepting another person. Acceptance is usually a multi generation thing where children intermingle with other children and learn there are no differences between group a and group b as defined within a current societal context. Discrimination is more about power than anything else, a superiority complex which is instilled thru a value differentiation system. If you truly want an end to discrimination then the part of the puzzle which needs to be eliminated is differentiation. You are not different because you are gay, wherein my choice argument was made within this context and blown way out of proportion. The reason for resistance is an innate recognition of privilege afforded to those who can differentiate themselves and claim such privileges. Blue eyes are better than brown eyes, in establishing such those with blue eyes get to be first in line, and have power over those with brown eyes. This latter was an actual study conducted by an elementary school teacher. Within this context that a privilege is used to force ones own values upon another human being. At its core it is subjugation by a privileged class, how such a privileged class uses this power whether established eons ago or newly acquired determines the type of resistance they will encounter in the long run.

I hope the above made some sense, just my thoughts on the subject.

[Blasveck]

Not gonna try to quote all that ^ on an iPhone, but your proposition, by my understanding, is that (for the sake of the argument) since gay people make their choice to be gay, they shouldn't be discriminated against, because we should respect the choices people make and not be judged for those choices?

[HappyShark]

Not gonna try to quote all that ^ on an iPhone, but your proposition, by my understanding, is that (for the sake of the argument) since gay people make their choice to be gay, they shouldn't be discriminated against, because we should respect the choices people make and not be judged for those choices?

precisely, in as much as those choices do not harm another person.

[Farnhamia]

ALl of which has what to do with the topic at hand? It does seem as if we've strayed.

We were discussing choices people make, and how these should be respected. Not just the choices made by a "protected" group, but choices made by people in general. At least this was my position and opinion. In relation to the topic this was a choice made by the photographer, and a lack of respect vis a vis her choice was clearly demonstrated. To argue legality is futile, because I will simply point you toward marijuana statistics and ask you how are those laws working out? Businesses adapt, as shown with Obamacare and the hours being cut by large corporations seeking to avoid the mandates.

We cannot change people this is just a fact of life. We may be able to get them to conform for a period of time, usually by ensuring a penalty outweighs the reward of acting in a certain manner. There are however instance where this Reward / Penalty paradigm are simply not going to work. In the instance of people accepting other people, they either will or won't. No amount of arguing or stacks of research is going to change a person to suddenly begin accepting another person. Acceptance is usually a multi generation thing where children intermingle with other children and learn there are no differences between group a and group b as defined within a current societal context. Discrimination is more about power than anything else, a superiority complex which is instilled thru a value differentiation system. If you truly want an end to discrimination then the part of the puzzle which needs to be eliminated is differentiation. You are not different because you are gay, wherein my choice argument was made within this context and blown way out of proportion. The reason for resistance is an innate recognition of privilege afforded to those who can differentiate themselves and claim such privileges. Blue eyes are better than brown eyes, in establishing such those with blue eyes get to be first in line, and have power over those with brown eyes. This latter was an actual study conducted by an elementary school teacher. Within this context that a privilege is used to force ones own values upon another human being. At its core it is subjugation by a privileged class, how such a privileged class uses this power whether established eons ago or newly acquired determines the type of resistance they will encounter in the long run.

I hope the above made some sense, just my thoughts on the subject.

Very well.

I would argue, however, that the choice made by the photographer was an ill-considered one because it was against the law. A better choice for her would be to contest the law in court, which she did and lost, or to work to change it. Gays are not claiming more rights than they are entitled to as citizens, they simply want the same rights as any other citizen. They want to be able to shop for a photographer for an important event without being told to go elsewhere because their sexual orientation does not meet someone's approval. The NMHRA exists because that's what happens to gays and in other circumstances to women and various ethnic minorities. It's not about more, it's about the same. And you're right, it is about subjugation by a privileged class, in this case the religiously motivated photographer who thinks that her faith gives her the privilege of breaking the law whenever she wants.

[HappyShark]

We were discussing choices people make, and how these should be respected. Not just the choices made by a "protected" group, but choices made by people in general. At least this was my position and opinion. In relation to the topic this was a choice made by the photographer, and a lack of respect vis a vis her choice was clearly demonstrated. To argue legality is futile, because I will simply point you toward marijuana statistics and ask you how are those laws working out? Businesses adapt, as shown with Obamacare and the hours being cut by large corporations seeking to avoid the mandates.

We cannot change people this is just a fact of life. We may be able to get them to conform for a period of time, usually by ensuring a penalty outweighs the reward of acting in a certain manner. There are however instance where this Reward / Penalty paradigm are simply not going to work. In the instance of people accepting other people, they either will or won't. No amount of arguing or stacks of research is going to change a person to suddenly begin accepting another person. Acceptance is usually a multi generation thing where children intermingle with other children and learn there are no differences between group a and group b as defined within a current societal context. Discrimination is more about power than anything else, a superiority complex which is instilled thru a value differentiation system. If you truly want an end to discrimination then the part of the puzzle which needs to be eliminated is differentiation. You are not different because you are gay, wherein my choice argument was made within this context and blown way out of proportion. The reason for resistance is an innate recognition of privilege afforded to those who can differentiate themselves and claim such privileges. Blue eyes are better than brown eyes, in establishing such those with blue eyes get to be first in line, and have power over those with brown eyes. This latter was an actual study conducted by an elementary school teacher. Within this context that a privilege is used to force ones own values upon another human being. At its core it is subjugation by a privileged class, how such a privileged class uses this power whether established eons ago or newly acquired determines the type of resistance they will encounter in the long run.

I hope the above made some sense, just my thoughts on the subject.

Very well.

I would argue, however, that the choice made by the photographer was an ill-considered one because it was against the law. A better choice for her would be to contest the law in court, which she did and lost, or to work to change it. Gays are not claiming more rights than they are entitled to as citizens, they simply want the same rights as any other citizen. They want to be able to shop for a photographer for an important event without being told to go elsewhere because their sexual orientation does not meet someone's approval. The NMHRA exists because that's what happens to gays and in other circumstances to women and various ethnic minorities. It's not about more, it's about the same. And you're right, it is about subjugation by a privileged class, in this case the religiously motivated photographer who thinks that her faith gives her the privilege of breaking the law whenever she wants.

Point well taken on the photographers either naivete or outright arrogance if done in full understanding of the legal implications. Naivete if she did not understand the factors at play in the sense of how the law does not protect her perceived right to religious freedom.

It will probably be a cold day in hell before we get the photographer to accept gay people. Be it for whatever reason she has a differentiated value system which gives her this particular view of the issue. Her honesty in expressing her values cost her a pretty penny, this we can all agree on. Lesson learned, she most likely will not be making such a mistake again. However I would be willing to bet betsies to dollars that she still will not be accepting engagement to photo shoot gay weddings. The reasons she provides will definitely be different, but seeing this particular photographer actively taking snapshots of a gay wedding, not going to happen. What was gained, other than perhaps a little vindication, a perception management nightmare by LGBT groups, and a set guideline businesses can follow to meet their own internal value systems?

For me the task would be more about establishing a non-differentiation status than to use this acquired differentiation as a weapon. I understand the LGBT community has a long way to go to be treated and accepted as socially normal. The Chinese have a saying that perception is everything, it does not matter what the facts are, but how these are perceived. In the instance of what happened in New Mexico there is a large subset perception of a right taken by privilege and in a way this perception is fairly accurate. As a non-privileged person if I were to walk into this same photography studio, and this photographer expressed a religious reason for not photographing my wedding I would have no recourse. So in this sense a privilege is established and utilized. Equality means that as a non-priveleged individual I would have the same non-differentiated recourse to take similar action. This is not an action I can currently take and therefore is above and beyond any rights I currently hold.

If the sentence commonly used to establish this right as: " A business cannot refuse a paying customer unless it were to unfairly burden them in some manner." is true, then I would propose that my non-privileged status should hold similar weight and her refusal to acquire me as a client on religious grounds would allow me to sue her and win. This is not the case, the courts would tell me to go to hell and dismiss my complaint outright. So in essence the right sought here is above and much more than anything afforded to the general public.

[Bookburnerland]

No, that is you who have to stop lying. Because firstly, it was you who asked me for sources about statistics I posted,

secondly, it is you who started threadjacking. I just replied you.

And ... since you are here, threadjacking again - because this is SO not the place to be bringing this up, you can take a *** 24hr Ban *** for doing the same thing all over again. The rest of you should not be entertaining any of this by replying, and you all know that, but I've learned that reminding players of these little details tends to be as effective as talking to a wall. Still, reminded again. Don't do it.

The topic, if you would. Thanks.

Well, being "banned from an Internet" is the thing I can easily live with, despite this ban is SO openly, so icredibly unfear. Can I ask why didn't you ban Mavorpen, who was the one who STARTED threadjacking? Is it OK to talk about sex with dogs here, like he did? But you banned me not him. It seems like you banned me rather for winning a discussion not for this "threadjacking". Because you don't like that it it me who is winning. Or I have to create a new thread for each new my reply if somebody claims it is a threadjack?

I any case, I don't see which way my replies are more "treadjacking" then predetermination or predisposition to homosexuality which is discussed right now.

[Australasia]

[snip]

.More BS completely ignoring the facts, picking off non-scientific statements off the internet, especially your laughable last paragraph.

As many others have already pointed out, as have I, I repeat:

Why hasn't the research moved in 18 years? we just see a rehash of this very same information over and over again ...why?

What rehashing? The world's scientific community has already concluded that homosexuality is normal, natural, innate, and immutable.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

End of story. Period.

Also refer to the rest of the world's major scientific organizations and the WHO on this matter.

Stop trying to ignore the scientific facts.

[Lithosano]

[snip]

.More BS completely ignoring the facts, picking off non-scientific statements off the internet, especially your laughable last paragraph.

As many others have already pointed out, as have I, I repeat:

What rehashing? The world's scientific community has already concluded that homosexuality is normal, natural, innate, and immutable.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

End of story. Period.

Also refer to the rest of the world's major scientific organizations and the WHO on this matter.

Stop trying to ignore the scientific facts.

Queer by Choice: Because Bi- and Pan-sexuality do not exist.

There are a variety of issues with their webpage, most notably that one man's blog is not a source. I do notice that they seem to believe that you can "choose" to be gay but you can't choose to be straight. Honestly, I'd imagine the "Queer by Choice" folk are bi or pan and are confusing "I'm choosing to have relations solely with other men/women," for gay being a choice. That, or, going by the website's "acquired taste" analogy, forcing themselves to be gay. I'd take anything originating from that webpage with a heap of salt.

Or maybe they really are the unique in getting to choose their sexuality. Great for them, not so great for those of us who didn't get that chance.

[HappyShark]

[snip]

.More BS completely ignoring the facts, picking off non-scientific statements off the internet, especially your laughable last paragraph.

As many others have already pointed out, as have I, I repeat:

What rehashing? The world's scientific community has already concluded that homosexuality is normal, natural, innate, and immutable.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

End of story. Period.

Also refer to the rest of the world's major scientific organizations and the WHO on this matter.

Stop trying to ignore the scientific facts.

Really??? I know you are smarter than this. Simply saying BS is not a valid argument, wherein you express your own thoughts on the matter. As far as scientific fact current scientific consensus is: there is no "magic bullet" this is why someone is gay. It is neither predetermined nor solely based on social factors. Using a link to the politically correct marketing page of some psychiatry group, which was probably reviewed by half a dozen lawyers before being published is also not a peer reviewed scientific source.

I understand that from a legal and political stand point saying this is a choice just like religion or what color someone may be predisposed to prefer is a much harder battle to fight. All I am saying it may be a harder battle but one which I think is definitely worth fighting. The Born this Way, is great for marketing, and a great political position, but it also weakens the position and puts it in a highly volatile defensive position. Notably apparent when celebrities or people with social media reach claim "choice". The political and damage control arms of the LGBT machine swing into action demanding retractions, and applying pressure until such is granted. Honestly does not look good from the sidelines, almost like desperate attempts at an all or nothing game, which is being lost, and radicalization is the only solution. One way and only one way, all other ways are false, dangerously close to religious belief if you ask me.

Is there some reason for this need to ostracize those who claim they are gay by choice?

[HappyShark]

.More BS completely ignoring the facts, picking off non-scientific statements off the internet, especially your laughable last paragraph.

As many others have already pointed out, as have I, I repeat:



Also refer to the rest of the world's major scientific organizations and the WHO on this matter.

Stop trying to ignore the scientific facts.

Queer by Choice: Because Bi- and Pan-sexuality do not exist.

There are a variety of issues with their webpage, most notably that one man's blog is not a source. I do notice that they seem to believe that you can "choose" to be gay but you can't choose to be straight. Honestly, I'd imagine the "Queer by Choice" folk are bi or pan and are confusing "I'm choosing to have relations solely with other men/women," for gay being a choice. That, or, going by the website's "acquired taste" analogy, forcing themselves to be gay. I'd take anything originating from that webpage with a heap of salt.

Or maybe they really are the unique in getting to choose their sexuality. Great for them, not so great for those of us who didn't get that chance.

I will have you note that PFLAG which has been at the forefront of supporting gays, lesbians, their friends and families for well over 40 years internationally has recognized their position, and even retracted their 11 year old stance on Born This Way, in recognition of choice. At the end of the day the stronger message is "Respect my choice and do not condemn me for it". This does not mean someone has to agree with your choice, but from a legal stand point they cannot use it to condemn you for it either.

"Born This Way" will always leave room for someone to challenge it, because it relies on underlying biological proof, which for all intents and purposes will not be forthcoming.

You may not like what I am saying but you should really think it over.

[Oliver Boringwell]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... -protests/
I am just here to bring the news unless it has been brought up already.

[Neo Rome Republic]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/
I am just here to bring the news unless it has been brought up already.

This certainly makes me feel better, and my day more amusing.

[Llamalandia]

Queer by Choice: Because Bi- and Pan-sexuality do not exist.

There are a variety of issues with their webpage, most notably that one man's blog is not a source. I do notice that they seem to believe that you can "choose" to be gay but you can't choose to be straight. Honestly, I'd imagine the "Queer by Choice" folk are bi or pan and are confusing "I'm choosing to have relations solely with other men/women," for gay being a choice. That, or, going by the website's "acquired taste" analogy, forcing themselves to be gay. I'd take anything originating from that webpage with a heap of salt.

Or maybe they really are the unique in getting to choose their sexuality. Great for them, not so great for those of us who didn't get that chance.

I will have you note that PFLAG which has been at the forefront of supporting gays, lesbians, their friends and families for well over 40 years internationally has recognized their position, and even retracted their 11 year old stance on Born This Way, in recognition of choice. At the end of the day the stronger message is "Respect my choice and do not condemn me for it". This does not mean someone has to agree with your choice, but from a legal stand point they cannot use it to condemn you for it either.

"Born This Way" will always leave room for someone to challenge it, because it relies on underlying biological proof, which for all intents and purposes will not be forthcoming.

You may not like what I am saying but you should really think it over.

Why won't biological proof be forcomin? I mean we've already identified genes and patterns of inheritance for many diseases even before we fully understood molecular genetics. I mean do the research find the answer get back to us on it. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. But yeah, i mean trying to refute science with non-science isn't going to work out too well.

Of course the problem with bio proof is that even once you find it youre going to have people legitimately try and argue it is a disease state (keep in mind if i understand correctly the APA still regards gender dysphoria as a disease or condition and not as normal human variation). So it's a bit of a catch 22. It seems there's a tentative general consensus that if it's a choice then it shouldn't be protected and if it isn't a choice is should be protected so really teh biological question is of great importance to the debate.

Whether the court in NM was right (outside of law ithink it's hards to argue they misinterpreted the law) but more broadly and philosophically "right" very much hinges on fundamental question of gay rights in general.

[Oliver Boringwell]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/
I am just here to bring the news unless it has been brought up already.

This certainly makes me feel better, and my day more amusing.

I personally find it in bad taste.

But then again, force is often the driving point of progress or whatever it is called.

[Neo Rome Republic]

This certainly makes me feel better, and my day more amusing.

I personally find it in bad taste.

But then again, force is often the driving point of progress or whatever it is called.

Understandable.

[Dyakovo]

This certainly makes me feel better, and my day more amusing.

I personally find it in bad taste.

But then again, force is often the driving point of progress or whatever it is called.

You find people reacting negatively to discrimination to be bad taste?

[HappyShark]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/
I am just here to bring the news unless it has been brought up already.

Well if this was me

This would be where it becomes private bakery which serves specific congregations on a referral and membership basis only Submission for a weeding cake would only betaken for weddings held in one of these congregations in the church. In other words you would need a solid wedding date with a priest or pastor as a member of this congregation before we even look at you. If this becomes problematic then orders are only taken from a private committee established within these congregations. The committee makes no money and is simply a voluntary forwarding referral service provided by the church.

lol, I think I'm gong to propose this to the churches in my neighborhood

btw... the above is just devil's advocate...

[Oliver Boringwell]

I personally find it in bad taste.

But then again, force is often the driving point of progress or whatever it is called.

You find people reacting negatively to discrimination to be bad taste?

Do you find angry protestors threatening the lives of your family, force you to shut down your business, and boycotting anyone whom even came near you in some kind of dumb gay blacklist for not getting cake in good taste?