re: GA HB 757 - Should Deal sign it?

quote:

---

while they wear shirts and other paraphanelia that slurs gay people and condemns them to hell.

---

I bet that minister wouldn't marry a gay couple if they were wearing shirts depicting 14 guys blowing 19 guys.

Another angle that nobody is talking about is that this bill doesn't even to pretend to extend so-called "religious liberty" to all faiths. It is geared at placating - SPECIFICALLY - evangelical protestant zealots. Regardless of whether the substance of the bill is constitutional or not, legislation that is designed to help a particular religious group (rather than all religious groups) is unconstitutional. If I were a Norse pagan, I damn well would expect the GA legislature to allow me to commit murder to further my beliefs of clan war and ritual human sacrifice to my patron god. All hail Tyr, bringer or destruction.

nm

quote:

---

As far as being a commie, far from it. I'm about as fiscally conservative as it gets.

---

Wrong. You most certainly are a commie.

Not only are you arguing against private property rights (the absolute bedrock of freedom), but you’re following the commie playbook to the letter and trying to redefine private businesses as public services.

And as is typical with most commies, you also appear to be completely illiterate on the subject of economics.

A “fiscal conservative” as you refer to yourself, would not only be disgusted by the violations of the right to contract with whoever you want that you suggest but would also realize that a free market and the incentives of profit are the solution to the “problem” here…. and that the “problem” is only and always made worse by the introduction of clumsy governmental busybody meddling.

Eat shite commie.

You have no idea what a communist do you? Sorry, but you can't use the same argument people in the 50's used to deny blacks entrance.

quote:

---

I'm genuinely asking...what ways could/should the CRA be amended? I casually get what that act did, but my question is what way would it be updated to reflect modern times?

---

In a nutshell......Part of the CRA obviously did good. Because it took power away from governments. But parts of the CRA are unconstitutional and evil. Because it gave even MORE centralized power to the government allowing for control of private property and manipulation of personal choice and free will.

Beyond that, as usual the government never ever solves the problem they set out to solve. In the real world and not politician fantasy world, trying to force racial harmony only makes the problem worse. Period.

What? Dude it's no different then being straight, people can't help to who their attracted to. It goes the same way with standards of dating, a girl some guy may find ugly another may find hot. Everyone has different standards and it's no different then orientation

While it may be a mix... I will say that very few people knowingly make their lives more difficult simply on a whim. I would say the *vast* majority of homosexual individuals are at least in some way pre-wired that way. If I polled those that I know (which I've not outright done, but some have shared their stories) I would be willing to wager it's more than 90% were aware of their orientation by age 11-14... around the age most boys and girls are starting to find the opposite less "gross" and more "curiously intriguing". That's a hell of an early age to start affixing "choice" and then penalizing against it.

Interestingly, homosexual behavior is not limited to the human population... do penguins and giraffes have themselves to blame as well? LINK
Was BPA to blame when they were doing this hundreds of years ago?

The funny thing is, by their very nature, they can't produce offspring. So if it's a genetic condition, it's one that continues to occur and at the same time can't be passed on without a) SCIENCE! or b) having a heterosexual interaction.

A fancy restaurant can deny me the ability to dine there because I wore blue jeans and a t-shirt. That's fine, because I can change my jeans and t-shirt, come back in a suit and we're all set. Expecting someone to change the fabric of who they are in order to gain admittance is simply illogical. I agree with the need to protect religious beliefs, particularly clergy, but extending religious freedoms to non-religious acts is where I draw the line. If it's ok to deny service because of religious preferences, is it also ok to refuse to pay taxes because my church believes in only paying tithe to the church and does not recognize any governmental authority to tax? Of course not...

The same cake baker would be up in arms had they gone to purchase their supplies for their work but were told *no* because they make confections, which in turn feed the obesity problem in the US. What if all suppliers then took that stance? It was his choice to go into the cake baking business... should he have to change his business to a Whole Foods? Equal protection only exists when *everyone* is given the same rights, otherwise it's simply stacking the deck.

The bill is not designed to protect the interests of Jews, Muslims, etc, but that doesn't seem to matter to many. As a matter of fact, our state legislature starts out with required *Christian* prayer/service. But we don't have an official religion...

And again, I know people who fit into both. Are you going to tell me those who identify that way without a natural inkling to are wrong about themselves, based on their own stories?

As for animals, we can postulate that they have engaged in such behaviors for centuries, but we don't know that. There's also a difference in animals driven by instinct (who may have other factors involved) and human beings. And yes, in modern decades, centuries, etc, animals are not immune to environmental factors and influences. BPA, for instance, affects the body as a synthetic ESTROGEN. Think about that.

quote:

---

I know people who fit into both. Are you going to tell me those who identify that way without a natural inkling to are wrong about themselves, based on their own stories?

---

Did they personally tell you they made themselves all of a sudden become sexually attracted to the same sex? That seems hard to believe because Attraction is instinctual as in You like what you like. It was more likely your friendd finally succumbed to a reality that they were gay after years of denial for reasons of fear and guilt.