Wednesday, June 17, 2015

One of these stores illegally discriminates. Do you know which one?

We do not serve

We do not serve
tarot card readers

 We do not serve

We do not serve


Ducky's here said...

Pretty insipid, Joe.

sue hanes said...

Joe - I haven't the slightest idea. Perhaps you'd like to reveal the answer.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It also misrepresents the real issue. No one discriminates against "gays," at least I've never read or heard of anyone doing so. They discriminate against activities and behaviors which "gays' promote, organize, and participate in.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, can someone also say no one discriminates against Christians, just against certain behaviors that "Christians" promote, organize and participate in?

Wouldn't that be intellectually consistent?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Not the same. People discriminate against Christians as people due to their beliefs. No one discriminates against "gays" because they are "gay."

Examples about. The florist who was sued for not doing a fake wedding had regular "gay" customers and never discriminated against them as people. Only when she was asked to provide services for a fake wedding she discriminated against that activity.

Every business which has been sued for discrimination had no problem serving "gays" for any services EXECPT for particular events, etc (like printing a T-shirt with a pro-"gay" message).

You leftists just deny the difference so you can promote the victimology, which has always been part of the homosexual agenda.

Joe said...

Ducky: Love the level of insight.

sh: Gays

GEC: Of course!

DM: You are lecturing us about intellectual inconsistencies?

GEC: DM is not capable of understanding your point.

Ducky's here said...

@Glenn -- No one discriminates against "gays" because they are "gay."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Why it is "stunning" to tell the facts? OH, you don't like facts.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, if someone loses his job solely for being gay, would that be a case of discrimination?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


If the job requires obedience to a moral code and that person knew the code when they signed up, no that is not because of being "gay." The same action would be for any sexual immorality.

You could say then that they discriminated against "gay" behavior, but it is really all sexual immorality. This has been done many times and the "gay" claims discrimination based on sexual "orientation." And liberal judges back them up with the lie, because their "orientation" isn't what got them fired, rather it was behavior violating a moral code.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe gay is a choice, correct? As opposed to being born that way, with those desires?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


All people are born with desire to sin. We do NOT have to act on said desires.

Homosexual behavior is ALWAYS chosen. Every sexual activity is chosen (context does not include rape). If a company has a moral code against immortal sexual behavior (any sexual activity outside of real marriage), then anyone who hired on knowing said rules and then violates said rules, cannot claim discrimination. This has been done with several cases where "gays" have claimed discrimination with the firing.

Joe said...

DM: "...if someone loses his job solely for being gay, would that be a case of discrimination?"

If someone looses his job solely for being a sorcerer, is that discrimination?

"...if I am understanding you correctly, you believe gay is a choice, correct? As opposed to being born that way, with those desires?"

Something you will never hear or see in the MSM is that homosexuality is NOT the result of genetics. No one has ever been born a homosexual. Homosexuality is a learned response to experiential stimuli. Ultimately, one chooses how to respond to those stimuli and eventually becomes acclimated to the response he/she chooses.

Homosexuality is a choice in the same way that chronic anger is a choice. One is not born chronically angry, one learns to respond to situations angrily over a period of time because certain rewards result...the angry one gets his own way. Eventually, the behavior becomes ingrained. Hence road rage, mass killings, etc.

But lets not miss the point of the post (as liberals most assuredly will, every time). What is legally discrimination is subjective and is the result of laws, rules and regulations by those seeking control over others.

Truth: DM, you discriminate. If you don't, your life will be a shambles, because your choices will be devastating. I discriminate for the same reasons. Discrimination is not only healthy, it is necessary. What we are "allowed" to discriminate against is determined by stupid, inept laws.

We hear every day that the race issues in the U.S. have never been resolved. Yet we have had laws that require mixed-race schools, mixed-race neighborhoods, and mixed-almost anything else. How have those silly laws helped? They haven't.

The issue is not legal discrimination against gays, or races, or guns or whatever you may be addressing at any given time, the issue is one of the heart, which cannot be legislated. The heart issue can only be solved one way.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, I'm gonna employ a little conservative logic for you on the question of whether someone is born gay, or becomes gay.

You will recognize it as being asked to prove a negative, something we asked Saddam Hussein to do before we bombed and totally broke apart Iraq.

So, you made a statement that homosexuality is not a result of genetics.

Can you prove that please? What substantive proof is there that your statement is true, or accurate?

Now choosing to act on ones desires, gay or straight, certainly is a choice, sinful for some, not so much for others.

Joe said...

DM: Some things are the logical conclusions of a series of facts. Some time ago, a small, but influential group of physiologists postulated that there was probably a gene responsible for causing homosexuality. They set out to prove their hypothesis. The press picked up on the investigation and quickly proclaimed that it had been proven that homosexuality was genetic.

When the study ended, there had been, in fact, no gene that could be used as a marker for homosexuality. There has not been one found since then, either. Still, the myth perpetuates itself to the delight of those to whom quasi-science is held in high esteem.

In my studies in psychology at Stetson University, DeLand, Florida, I spent two semesters studying aberrant sexual behavior, including homosexuality. From the data I collected, I deduced that homosexuality is a learned response to micro-social (usually the family) stimuli.

My conclusion was arrived at with the data first and the hypothesis later. Thus, there was no incentive to prove a hypothesis by tilting the data one way or another. In other words, I was not attempting to prove that homosexuality was caused by a gene, caused by choice, caused by falling in a pile of dung or anything else. I simply collected the data and compared it to the rest of the data.

Now let me be clear: I do not consider psychology to be a science. It lacks the elements necessary for real science, the major lacking being repeatability and predictability.

While one can scientifically observe that freezing water produces ice, one cannot scientifically observe that a lack of a father figure leads to homosexuality. One can gather data that heavily stacks itself on the side of suggesting that learned behavior is the most likely cause of homosexuality. That is not a qualitative deduction, it is a quantitative deduction.

From a theological perspective, homosexuality is a sin for two reasons: 1) the Word of God specifically identifies it as such and 2) it is the nature of man to choose the base rather than the honorable.

This being a free country (for the time being, at least), you can disagree with any part of the above if you like, but you will be wrong.

Dave Miller said...

Lots here Joe...

But you did not disprove anything.

While there may be no conclusion to date, that does not mean there is not... it simply means we have not discovered it yet.

Sort of like the WMD in Iraq that people to this day, in spite of the words of President Bush and others in his admin, claim were there.

I'll admit, I do not know the answer to this question, and in reality, no one does.

But as we move forward with the recent SCOTUS decision, I think conservatives, and yes, many Christians, can only blame themselves.

If the church would have stood up and advocated for equal treatment under the law years ago through civil unions, the precious definition of marriage would probably have survived. But that was too far for many. The church looked silly defending a stance that denied people in gay relationships a chance to say goodbye to a dying partner in a hospital because they were not married. When you add that to the tax advantages afforded to married people, it was an indefensible legal challenge.

The church had the opportunity to do the right thing years ago, and refused. Now we will live with consequences.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave Miller,

If the church would have stood up and advocated for equal treatment under the law years ago through civil unions,

First, same-sex unions will NEVER be equal to opposite-sex unions.

Secondly, they already had equal rights that everyone else had. The only rights they didn't have was to be married to someone of the same sex. Just what "equal treatment" do you think they didn't or didn't have access to?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I "entered" before I was finished

The church looked silly defending a stance that denied people in gay relationships a chance to say goodbye to a dying partner in a hospital because they were not married. When you add that to the tax advantages afforded to married people, it was an indefensible legal challenge.

Anyone can make a legal document which gives anyone else the right to make medical decisions for them, as well as the right to be there to say "good bye." I know, because we've made such medical documents with a lawyer so that dear friends have the rights because we have no family members we can trust.

The tax advantages we given to promote the welfare of society by establishing the family unit - the bedrock of society. Same-sex couples do not provide anything to society other than corrosion. It was perfectly defensible for decades since it started. Promoting stable society is always beneficial to the government.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you're being silly... in your first comment, you state that gay people had the same rights that everyone else had. What world do you live in? While you can call it whatever you want, the fact is, they did not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Whether you like it or not, or agree or disagree, that right did not exist. Period.

And with that, all the rights accorded to a married person, which you acknowledge in your second response.

And it is the dismissive overly righteous attitude, exhibited by many in the church that has caused so much of the animus connected to this issue. The Christian church, at every turn, has been anything but an example of Jesus' compassion, mercy and love to those who are not part of our "tribe."

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, regarding your legal document, what you state is state specific. And even in those states that allowed it, it was not always the case. But nice try.

Sorry about that.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


There is no such thing as marrying a person of the same sex. That isn't what marriage is. So how can someone be denied a right to have something nonexistent. They had the same right to marry as everyone else had. Same-sex marriage doesn't exist any more than does a square circle.

Tell me one state - just one - which does not allow a legal contract of medical issues.

Jesus' compassion would not allow fake marriage. HE specifically stated what marriage is. And He, being God, condemned homosexual behavior. So the Church is only following the lead of its founder. Demonstrate what God says about homosexuality and offer a way of salvation. Real love does not foster that which is harmful to the person.