Why so few homosexuals?

[Mike]

15 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Our best, and maybe only remaining, argument to broader culture is our living example of joyful God-fearing living. Ironically, this is an OT approach. Let our happy and productive families present as a "city on a hill," so that outsiders will want to come and join our success.

In the mean time, I am urging non-religious folk to remember our countries long tradition of conscientious objection, which should, imho, permit Christians to abstain from doing business that support marriages we find religiously objectionable. I'm also doing my tiny part to restore the belief in loyal opposition--that we can disagree, and still care about each other and be loyal.

I'm reading along and cheering, "hear, hear" in your first paragraph. In your second paragraph I'm thinking that I certainly don't want to make somebody do something they don't want to do (and yet at the same time I'm thinking how much I enjoy doing business with anyone, and striving to pass the light on in a good-will-towards-all-men sort of way, too.)  Oh well, I've lived long enough to know one can't please all the people all the time.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Mike

[prisonchaplain]

@Mike Are you for/against permitting florist, photographers, bakers etc. the right to refuse servicing same-sex marriages, as a matter of conscience?

[Mike]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

@Mike Are you for/against permitting florist, photographers, bakers etc. the right to refuse servicing same-sex marriages, as a matter of conscience?

I'm for having my own retail store which I'd like to name "Mama Eddy's Right-On Flower Cakery" and put a sign in it that says, "Everybody Welcome"

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm for having my own retail store which I'd like to name "Mama Eddy's Right-On Flower Cakery" and put a sign in it that says, "Everybody Welcome"

 

So you can follow your conscience, but the rest of us can't? 

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So you can follow your conscience, but the rest of us can't? 

Hahaha, did I say that? I thought I made it clear enough in the post before last. (Or was it the  post before the post before last?) 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Mike

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hahaha, did I say that? I thought I made it clear enough in the post before last. 

Make it clear so that stupid people like me can understand it. 

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Make it clear so that stupid people like me can understand it. 

If you don't want to help somebody in your store, don't do it. By the way, make it clear who your conscience tells you not to help. (Just so people like me can understand it.)

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Mike

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

If you don't want to help somebody in your store, don't do it. By the way, make it clear who your conscience tell you not to help. 

Good enough I guess. 

Here's the ironic part: I think it's (to quote the wonderful Clarence Thomas) "uncommonly silly" to refuse service to anyone, and if I ran a bakery/florist, whatever, there is no question that I'd fulfill any order that came my way. But, I support 100% your (generic usage) right to refuse service to anyone. 

[Mike]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Good enough I guess. 

Here's the ironic part: I think it's (to quote the wonderful Clarence Thomas) "uncommonly silly" to refuse service to anyone, and if I ran a bakery/florist, whatever, there is no question that I'd fulfill any order that came my way. But, I support 100% your (generic usage) right to refuse service to anyone. 

To be perfectly honest I can't in good conscience deny them the "right", but I can't in good conscience stand next to them in solidarity. Of course on the other hand I suppose if the person they don't want to serve was a snot and came in just to push-them-around so to speak, I couldn't stand next to "them" either.  I'd just walk out and say to myself, "You're both wrong." 

 

[bytebear]

28 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Mike Are you for/against permitting florist, photographers, bakers etc. the right to refuse servicing same-sex marriages, as a matter of conscience?

I believe in freedom of assembly, which means we should never be forced to engage in any transaction or interaction we don't want to.  That said, if you work for a company, your contract is with the company, not the customer, so you can refuse service, but you can also be fired for that choice. 

But I also think it is foolish to offer a service and not provide to willing customers.  I wonder what the early Saints did when non-Mormon settlers who maybe gambled, or worked on Sunday or cussed wanted to engage in commerce in Utah.  Well, I know the answer.  Brigham Young encouraged cooperation over conflict.

[prisonchaplain]

Are we all on the same page in understanding the backstory to this question? Some Christians believe they should not participate in same-sex weddings because they are against God's design. LGBT activists have intentionally sought out such individuals (yes, most often single-person businesses), and then demanded to be served. More than one has lost their business (or been fined in excess of $100,000), because the courts are saying you can refuse to serve Trump supporters but not LBGT weddings.  I get the humor saying, "I want everyone's money." I also get that some Christians do not mind serving other people in functions they would not themselves do. However, we have historically allowed people to abstain from serving in the military during times of war, because of the pacifist convictions. Now, we're saying the right to refuse service does not extend to one's religious convictions. I guess I'm not getting the joke. 

[bytebear]

As to biological arguments, the fact is, they don't matter.  We are supposed to put off the natural man, and that includes lustful feelings wherever they come from, and who ever they are directed toward.  Certainly there are plenty of heterosexual men who have lusted for someone other than their spouse.  Biologically this valid, and certainly valid for hormonal teenagers, but God has given rules, designed to ensure our lasting happiness, not just our immediate urges.

[Mike]

17 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Are we all on the same page in understanding the backstory to this question? Some Christians believe they should not participate in same-sex weddings because they are against God's design. LGBT activists have intentionally sought out such individuals (yes, most often single-person businesses), and then demanded to be served. More than one has lost their business (or been fined in excess of $100,000), because the courts are saying you can refuse to serve Trump supporters but not LBGT weddings.  I get the humor saying, "I want everyone's money." I also get that some Christians do not mind serving other people in functions they would not themselves do. However, we have historically allowed people to abstain from serving in the military during times of war, because of the pacifist convictions. Now, we're saying the right to refuse service does not extend to one's religious convictions. I guess I'm not getting the joke. 

No, I guess we aren't/weren't all on the same page. I see that your page is about the current political climate, etc. My page was about my individual viewpoint relative to treating people the way I wish to be treated. I can see how those two pages could appear to be at odds. But hopefully, I for one don't need to drone on about my viewpoint and hopefully I eventually answered your question directed to me. I get your viewpoint now. Still not sure I get the part about "the joke", though. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Mike

[bytebear]

I think about my mother, and she would say, "be polite". If I meet a crazy person on the street who has a flower pot on her head, and she calls it a hat, I am going to tell her it's a lovely hat, because it's the polite thing to do.  Same thing for all the crazy cultural changes going on.  Smile and be polite.

[Maureen]

47 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

...LGBT activists have intentionally sought out such individuals (yes, most often single-person businesses), and then demanded to be served. More than one has lost their business (or been fined in excess of $100,000), because the courts are saying you can refuse to serve Trump supporters but not LBGT weddings...

Seriously? Are you saying that there's a LGBT conspiracy going on? Can you provide a source or sources for the above quote?

M.

[bytebear]

I can't find specifics, but I do recall that a gay couple who was critical in the gay marriage lawsuits specifically moved to a state in order to have a better chance of winning their case.

 

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Seriously? Are you saying that there's a LGBT conspiracy going on? Can you provide a source or sources for the above quote?

M.

The conspiracy terminology is yours, but yes, there are LGBT folks look to bank on Christian conscientious objection:

* Baker fined $135K

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/6/sweet-cakes-melissa-christian-bakers-oregon-appeal/

* Florist sued twice for refusing to provide flowers for gay wedding:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

And YES, there are anti-Trump businesses getting accolades for refusing to serve GOP clients:

* Business owner lauded for refusing to serve Republicans or Trump supporters

http://www.newshounds.us/this_business_owner_refuses_business_trump_supporters_someone_thankful_for_112316

 

The justification some LGBT supporters are offering is that it is acceptable to refuse service on political grounds, but it is illegal to discriminate based on gender orientation. 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Maureen]

59 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The conspiracy terminology is yours, but yes, there are LGBT folks look to bank on Christian conscientious objection:

* Baker fined $135K

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/6/sweet-cakes-melissa-christian-bakers-oregon-appeal/

* Florist sued twice for refusing to provide flowers for gay wedding:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

And YES, there are anti-Trump businesses getting accolades for refusing to serve GOP clients:

* Business owner lauded for refusing to serve Republicans or Trump supporters

http://www.newshounds.us/this_business_owner_refuses_business_trump_supporters_someone_thankful_for_112316

 

@prisonchaplain, your remarks made it sound like these LGBT deliberately sought out these businesses to cause them trouble. You used the words "intentionally" and "demanded". The articles you provided did not say anything about what you have described.

The 1st in SEO article is interesting. I found this as an explanation of what is legally considered discrimination for a private company.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/25/can-businesses-refuse-to-serve-or-employ-trump-supporters/

M.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Maureen

[prisonchaplain]

@Maureen, I have read that in the Oregon case, the plaintiff knew the baker, and knew a refusal would be coming. I'll dig around to see if I can find sources for that understanding. Beyond those particular two cases, common sense tells me that if I am getting married, I would not choose vendors who were hostile to my marriage. And yet, these cases will keep popping up, because SCOTUS said gay marriage is a human right.  More and more, I'm see progressive commentators putting scare " " around the term "religious liberty. I believe an Obama Administration committee even issues a report suggestion that the term often is cover for hate and bigotry.

[JohnsonJones]

Well, actually in some of the cases they DID specifically target the ONE business out of two or three (and in one case over a dozen) to try to force them to do things, despite the fact that there was a business that WOULD do so right down the block.

That's one item that makes it seem like their is an agenda.  When someone targets a specific individual, despite having other options...yes...it seems a tad fishy.

There have also been a case or two where there was the only one in town, but many of these isn't because of a lack of options, but specifically targeting a business to make a point or run that business out of "business" as it were.

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Maureen, I have read that in the Oregon case, the plaintiff knew the baker, and knew a refusal would be coming. I'll dig around to see if I can find sources for that understanding. Beyond those particular two cases, common sense tells me that if I am getting married, I would not choose vendors who were hostile to my marriage. And yet, these cases will keep popping up, because SCOTUS said gay marriage is a human right.  More and more, I'm see progressive commentators putting scare " " around the term "religious liberty. I believe an Obama Administration committee even issues a report suggestion that the term often is cover for hate and bigotry.

Legal action groups (across the ideological spectrum) are continually on the lookout for cases with particular fact patterns that they think will be useful in pursuing a particular agenda.  In law school, at least a couple of times professors would openly say "the best way to overturn this precedent would be to present the court with a scenario where x, y, and z had all occurred."  And IIRC, the interest group that litigated Brown v. Board of Education declined to represent a number of potential clients in the preceding years; because the fact patterns weren't just so.

And it isn't just constitutional lawyers.  ADA trolls routinely recruit "disabled" people to troll through business districts searching for violations over which the lawyers can then shake down the business owners with a demand to fix the problem, provide nominal compensation for the "disabled" person, and--of course--a hefty lawyer's fee.  "Copyright trolls" run a similar scam.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

I did not find documentation that plaintiffs in the Oregon bakery case knew the plaintiffs prior. On the other hand, the LBGT cases against eHarmony and ChristianMingle dating sites seem to be straight forward enough. 

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Mike said:

If you ask me as an Atheist, then I disagree that nature is *structured* at all. If you ask me as a Believer, then I agree that God utilizes so-called Evolution in order to facilitate a Plan. In either case I will agree that all species appear to tend toward perpetuation. 

In addition to what you suggest about "structure," I just read a couple of papers that will force me to re-examine my arguments from nature.

The first argues persuasively that, in terms of evolution, "survival of the species" is a myth. (see HERE)

The other paper argues persuasively that it is a misconception that evolution results in progress, and that organisms are always getting better through evolution. (see HERE)

So, back to the drawing board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

NOTE Given what I said above in response to MIKE, It may be a few days before I can rework my argument from nature. I appreciate your patience, though it appears that there is lively and thoughtful discussion going on without me. That is good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 21, 2017 by wenglund

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, wenglund said:

Does anyone disagree with the proposition that, generally speaking, nature is structured to survive and evolve--such is the fundamental order, function, purpose of living things?

Do you agree that this proposition holds true even at the species level?

I ask because my arguments presupose this to be true.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes.  Nature is structured to survive and evolve.

What you keep on missing is that Sex is not just a function for Survival of the Species but also of Social Communication.