JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple (page 12)

cofty

Is promiciousity morally acceptable if it is in a mutually accepted open relationship?

Acceptable to who? The promiscuity of others is none of my business.

There are very good genetic reasons to believe that promiscuity always ends in tears however.

Mikado

reading this thread, the narrow mindedness and judgemental nature of some posters is shocking.

i keep trying to remember when I choose to be straight or my gender.

People,are what they are, her behaviour was disgraceful, but it's what I would have expected a good jw to do.

GOD I AM LUCKY TO HAVE ESCAPED..

LisaRose

So when my wife catches me in bed with another woman, I can tell her that it isn't my fault. I am genetically predisposed to being a horny dog.

Well, yes, actually, but I don't think your wife will buy it. And it's not a valid comparison. You are presumably attracted to your wife, but you may find other women attractive, because men are genetically predisposed to be attracted to more than one woman, but you control that behavior because you have a sexual partner that you desire, and you are willing to be monogamous to keep her. At the end of the day, you are having sex with someone you are attracted to.

Gay men will generally not be attracted to women at all, so it is not an option for them to choose to be sexually hetero. Many have tried due to religious and/or family pressure, and it never works out, they end up hurting the wife, who feels rejected, and they don't enjoy it either.

I don't think you know very much about gay people.

keyser soze

the banking industry is treats the porn industry as high risk, and as such, regularly denies service

why is it OK for the banking industry to refuse service to porn stars

Uh, because they're 'high risk'. Why did you ask if you already knew the answer?

Let me put it another way. That same bank could deny credit to a homosexual who has a bad credit history. But they couldn't deny them simply because they are homosexual. Do you understand the difference?

DJS

Homes,

What consenting adults do is none of my business. You ought to try that some time, that is, making it none of yours. I couldn't care less what married couples, straight couples, gay couples or any mixture thereof do sexually with one another, others, animate or inanimate objects of any kind as long as they are both in agreement. Cheating on someone is the only 'moral' issue, but what consenting adults do, I repeat, is none and has never been any of your business. To label any behavior between consenting adults with any moniker other than "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" is the epitome of arrogance.

If partners of any persuasion have an agreed upon open relationship, that is none of your business. If they share others, that is none of your business. If they tie the other up and phone a friend to join, that too is none of your business. Why is this concept so difficult for you.

mrhhome

Good. This conversation has gone exactly where I hoped.

I concur with the statements above. The sexual relationship between two consenting adults is none of my business. As long as their actions do not affect me, their relationship is their business.

[...I agree with the Clarence Thomas's dissent in the 2003 Lawerence v Texas decision which overturned Texas's sodomy laws. Essentially, he said that he would overturn the sodomy laws if he was on the Texas state legistlature, but the constitution did not give the Surpreme Court the authority to do so. In my opinion, he nailed that one...]

Unfortunately, the LGBT community made it my business when they began suing other business's for refusing to service their same sex weddings.

I completely support the "live and let live" philosophy, but it is a two-way street! I will respect your beliefs (even when I disagree), when you respect mine (even when you disagree). That is my position whether the issue concerns JW or LGBT.

You cannot complain about how the JW treats apostates and then cheer somebody who sues the JW when they disagree with them. It is a complete double standard.

cofty

This conversation has gone exactly where I hoped. - Mrhhhhome

No it hasn't but you are trying to make the best of it.

How many false comparisons can you come up with?

I don't respect your belief that there is something immoral or unethical with a gay relationship. It is unworthy of respect.

Discrimination against gay people is precisely analogous with Jim Crow laws. Society has moved on.

You don't get to treat people with bigotry. Using the word religion or conscience isn't going to work. Welcome to the 21st Century.

DJS

Homes,

I couldn't care less what Clarence Thomas or anyone else's veiws are on 'sodomy.' That's an archaic meaningless bullshit term. What consenting adults do is no one's business, including Clarence Thomas or anyone else holding on to ancient views, inclulding you. Your rationale is ridiculous; none of the comparisons are rational. Hate is hate. The SCOTUS has determined that people like you are wrong. Most of the high courts in other Western and other developed lands have determined the same thing. Others will soon join them, stating that you and those like you are hate filled bigots. The world is changing as we type these messages. You and those like you are short for the world, and me and those lke me are glad. The world will be a better place without you and your hate; cloaking it in bullshit rationale and feigned high moral ground changes nothing. It. Is. Hate.

LisaRose

You keep trying to pretend that a business that is refusing to serve a gay person is a conscience matter. It's not, it's discrimination, plain and simple.

You don't want to go to a gay wedding, fine.

You don't like gay people, fine.

When you have a business that serves the public and you chose not to serve gay people, not fine, not fine at all.

The Colorado civil rights commission recently ruled that a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding was discriminating. The baker decided to not make wedding cakes rather than comply, which of course is his right, but stupid if you ask me. It's a business, you provide a service.

Like it or not, it is the law. We are not going back to sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation any more than going back to the Jim Crow south.

DJS

Deal with it, haters (there's lots more where this came from):

On Mar. 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled Michigan's gay marriage ban unconstitutional. US District Judge Bernard Friedman wrote that "Today's decision... affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail."

New Mexico: 2014, ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a studio that refused to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony, letting stand a New Mexico high court ruling that helped spur a national debate over gay rights and religious freedom. The justices left in place a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling last year that said Elane Photography violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony "i n the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races." Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said "no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis. "The New Mexico Supreme Court applied settled law when it rejected the company's argument in this case, and the Supreme Court of the United States was correct to deny certiorari review. The time had come for this case to be over, and we are very happy with the result."

On Feb. 13, 2014, a federal judge ruled Virginia's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage

by Justin McCarthy

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage.

Two successive Gallup polls in 2012 saw support climb from 53% to 54%, indicating a steady but slight growth in acceptance of gay marriages over the past year after a more rapid increase between 2009 and 2011. In the latest May 8-11 poll, there is further evidence that support for gay marriage has solidified above the majority level . This comes on the heels of gay marriage proponents' 14 th legal victory in a row.

When Gallup first asked Americans this question about same-sex marriage in 1996, 68% were opposed to recognizing marriage between two men or two women, with slightly more than a quarter supporting it (27%). Since then, support has steadily grown, reaching 42% by 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it -- a milestone that reached its 10th anniversary this month.

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

Share this