Re: LGBT intolerance

On 12/2/22 1:12 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 8:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 12/1/2022 7:32 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2022 6:58 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:tmbkqp$2th0s$2@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/1/2022 2:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:57:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/30/2022 6:52 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/2022 10:54 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/22 11:28, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
>>>>>>>>>> enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
>>>>>>>>>> advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
>>>>>>>>>> accommodation, as defined in this section, without
>>>>>>>>>> discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
>>>>>>>>>> color, ------> religion <-------- or national origin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That refers to religion as a protected class.  That is, Catholics may
>>>>>> choose not to do business with divorced or gay people just for being
>>>>>> divorced or gay.  But nobody may discriminate against a Catholic just
>>>>>> because they're Catholic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Be careful. Federal law also provides for explicit protection for
>>>>>>>>> religiously-motivated conduct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         "We don't serve your kind" is not
>>>>>>>> a exercise of religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is if serving them makes you complicit in sin (in the opinion of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> business owner).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did Jesus say it was ok to treat homos like shit?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter what Jesus said. A religious belief is in the eye of
>>>>> the beholder.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     So any violation of civil rights is
>>>> legal as long as the perpetrator CLAIMS
>>>> a religious belief?
>>>
>>> Not just violation of civil rights, which is largely a civil matter, 
>>> but violation of *any* law, criminal or civil.  Whether he realizes 
>>> it or not, the slimy Jew sophist has just said that a person claiming 
>>> a "religious belief" is entitled to violate any law he wishes to 
>>> violate.
>>

Laws are there to punish the person violating our RIGHTS.   Nothing 
more.  They aren't to rehabilitate... they are to punish.

You know the punishment before you violate the law so you aren't 
surprised or at the mercy of the people you committed the crime against. 
  You get a rational un-corrupted trial and a known sentence just like 
every other violator of other people's RIGHTS for the same violation.

At least that's the goal.

Pull a gun and you may not make it to a trial... you play for life or 
death where you stand. That's the same for a Priest or a mugger.  Where 
the Government steps in is after the RIGHT to life is violated.  And by 
protect your RIGHTS they mean punish the violators of those RIGHTS.  NOT 
violate others RIGHTS to prevent all persons from exercising their RIGHT 
because they possibly could commit the crime. There is no reading the 
tea leaves of the future for crimes that haven't happened. And no 
delegated power to deny our RIGHTS based on those tea leaves telling the 
future.

>> No, I did not say that.
> 
> You did.
> 


-- 
-Reality Matters-