So if you do it once it's a hate crime, but if you do it consistently, it's perfectly fine? How does that make sense.

Look, if someone wants to believe the Earth is flat or a golden chariot carries the sun across the sky, that's fine. I don't care if people are wrong. I deal with people who are wrong all the time. Sometimes I'm wrong.

But, if they're going to use religion as an aegis of bigotry, then they can fuck off. You know what Jesus said? Love thy neighbor. If you aren't following the words of Christ, then you aren't a Christian. You're just a shit hiding behind a boring old book.

Seriously, if you're going to believe in fairy tales, at least follow them properly.



Not, *you*, btw, Draug. Just the generic "you".

Anyway, now that that is off my chest, I really am going to sleep.

Again, I feel I must repeat myself. *All* private businesses have the right to refuse service based on their own moral set. If Putin had a print shop and didn't want to do prints of the Serenity Prayer, he has that right. Until the day comes where we prove that sexual orientation is a genetic or biological orientation (enzymes, deficiency in the womb, whatever) then sexual orientation is a learned and or chosen behavior the se as a belief system: be it religion, or atheism.

What if a rich person wanted to commission an artist to paint a picture of a woman being raped. No woman would actually be raped to do it mind you. Just a picture for the rich patron to whack off to. Would not that artist have the right o say "fuck no!" and refuse the commission? A baker of wedding cakes and a photographer are both artists.

Also, read above where I made it clear I support this only in the case where the product is outright offensive to the moral sensibilities of the business owner or where the business owner would be forced to be or it his employees in a situation he or they found offensive. They can't deny service to a gay man who just wants a cup of coffee at a diner. I would agree that is wrong. But to deny a gay couple the so called "right" (which is actually a privilege") of getting married in a church is the pastor's right. To deny a Christian couple the *right* to get married in a synagogue is the rabbi's right. To deny a gay couple the "right" to force the baker to bake a crossed penis shaped cale is the baker's right.

Draugnar, your ignorance never seizes to amaze me. Sexual orientation is about as much a choice as getting a brain tumor is a choice. Science may not have pinpointed what exactly causes a particular sexual orientation or a brain tumor but it is pretty well established that neither is a choice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2004 stated:
"The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2007 stated:
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is."

"Draugnar, your ignorance never seizes to amaze me. Sexual orientation is about as much a choice as getting a brain tumor is a choice. Science may not have pinpointed what exactly causes a particular sexual orientation or a brain tumor but it is pretty well established that neither is a choice."

Actually, it's your ignorance that amazes me. A brain tumor can be found and potentially removed. It is a physical malady. Show me *anything* physical that you can't point to in a gay man that says "oh! Here is the problem!" You can't. But since we are on attacking people instead of arguing points... You are a moron for equating a medical malady with homosexuality. Are you so stupid as to think being gay is a bad condition that needs surgical removal if at all possible?

"It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

"It would appear". Not exactly words that prove anything. All they've done is say "we don't see anything so we are going to assume" and when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.

"Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

That would be nurture. Thanks for a quote that proves my point exactly. Nothing about race or gender is nurture. It is truly purely biological. Early childhood is not nature, but nurture. Environmental factors are not nature, but nurture.

That's completely irrelevant Draugnar. Your whole line of reasoning was based on it being a choice, which it obviously isn't. In that regard it is exactly the same as race or gender.

No, I said nurture. Review my list here. The choice is to be overt about it or not.

Review my *posts* here. Brain fart on my part.

Also, this entire direction is irrelevant as I have already pointed out that it isn't a gay/straight thing. It's the right of a business owner to not do something that violates his moral code. That includes atheist business owners not being forced to do Christian things. I'm not taking a Christian versus homosexual stance here. I'm taking the stance of the rights of a business owner versus the rights of a community. The moment we allow the community to trample individual rights is the moment we cease to be a community I want to live in.

"No, I said nurture. Review my list here. The choice is to be overt about it or not."

Review your own posts. This is what you said: "then sexual orientation is a learned and or chosen behavior." I guess you don't even know what the hell you are posting yourself.

Oh, and by the way, just because it develops in early childhood doesn't mean it's nurture. Unless you wish to argue that women getting breast is also nurture rather than nature.

"Also, this entire direction is irrelevant as I have already pointed out that it isn't a gay/straight thing. It's the right of a business owner to not do something that violates his moral code."

But I can see that you have now dropped this whole line of reasoning that: a) you started, and b) you have been going on about for a number of posts.

Debunking Draugnar's shit is fun.

We're talking about workers because we had spent upteen posts talking about the Muslim deliveryman and the Title VII portion of the Civil Rights Act, so it's highly relevant.

learned and.or chosen. That would be nurture (learned) or chosen. Maybe it isn't chosen. The statement still holds true that it is learned. Our brains learn through the environment, even in non traditional ways. Any behavior altered by the environment around us is a learned behavior. I stand by my statement, Oscar.

Putin - OK, talk about workers. I don't believe there is such a things as workers rights when it comes to religious freedom. When you are paid by someone else, you abide by their rules or find a new job. It's that simple.

Well that's clearly not the law. So you're a bit out of date.

I agree, but the question that is then begged is... What do you think the law should be. Should the worker be allowed to say "I'm not doing that. It violates my religious views."? Or should the employer be allowed to fire them for neglecting their duties to the company?

I think the current law as is presents a good standard (religious objection cannot present a substantial burden on the business) because I cannot think of a better standard.

So you believe in the rights of the employer where the religious rights cause an undue/substantial burden on the business. Interesting coming from the person who also is a devout follower of the almighty union, an organizational unit which *often* puts undue and substantial burden on the employer (what do you think a strike does?).

How do you rectify this apparent divergence and conflict within your views?

No where did I say that businesses could never be burdened. Work stoppages are a legitimate bargaining tactic.

So it's only religious freedom that can't unduly burden a business... So a union demanding that the business shut down on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day would be wrong?

There's no divide. Union actions relate to contracts to which the employer is a party. Religious conviction on the other hand is completely outside the employer's influence.

"So a union demanding that the business shut down on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day would be wrong?"

I don't see how that follows.

OK, thanks for that. So it only applies if the employer has agreed to it in a contract...

Now, what about when a new union forms and there is no contract yet in place with the employer, does the union have a right to go on strike and make demands?

And Christmas Eve and Christmas Day follow because they are a religious holiday (Christian to be specific).

So why would I think a work stoppage on a holiday is wrong?

For some businesses, the holidays are their busiest time of year and is when they make the most money, therefore shutting down on those unofficial holidays (they aren't federal holidays, but religious observances) could put an undue burden on the business. But I accept that it may be in the contract and what is in the contract is valid for striking. No problem there.

Back to my question you avoided about a new union and a new place of business when the contract hasn't been written yet. does that union have a write to strike when there is and never has been a contract?

Strikes occur when there is no agreed upon contract after labor negotiations. Similarly an employer can lock-out its workers. If the employer won't agree to a contract then of course the new union has the right to strike.

Like I said, I don't give a fig if a strike burdens a employer. That's the whole point.