I don't feel like repeating myself so I'll simply redirect you back to my previous post with respect to the CEO and the wider talking points it has generated.
As for this quote of yours, you couldn't be more wrong. It certainly was the homosexual agenda that is doing him in (he's not "done in" yet because the U.S. Supreme Court will most likely overturn the 9th Circuit Court's decision which deprived the baker of his human rights and religious liberties and sought to severely persecute him with imprisonment, bankruptcy, and a life of abject poverty for both him and his family).
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court is constantly reversing very bad rulings made in the uber-liberal 9th Circuit. In the 2009 term, for example, 15 of the 16 judgments handed down by the 9th Circuit were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court... almost every single one of them.
And you have some confusion about this issue for it was never about discriminating against homosexuals but rather an event that violated the baker's moral conscience (a free moral conscience is a human right under natural law) and religious convictions toward morality (something the founders sought to protect in the Bill of Rights). The baker stated emphatically that he would provide ALL his goods and services to ANYONE (including homosexuals) for ANY historically normatively moral purpose whatsoever. He's just not going to facilitate historically normatively immoral activities and events is all.
The homosexuals could have gone to another baker in our free marketplace, baked the cake themselves, or opened a bakery of their own even a homosexual bakery if they so wished.
What they chose to do was seek to use the government to destroy the baker while simultaneously contacting and berating all his vendors (harassment) and threatening to harm him and his family.
“You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical b***h. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,” one e-mail says.
“Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell,” said another.
Some said Aaron should be shot for not making the cake, while one called for him to be raped.
"Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness," their lawyer added.
In addition to the threatening rhetoric of people who align with you, the baker's vendors were “badgered and harassed” into not doing business with them.
I align with the baker. Americans should not be imprisoned and bankrupted (e.g. severely persecuted by the judicial-prison system) for refusing to facilitate immoral behaviors such as homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc... when those engaging in such behaviors order them to facilitate these behaviors. I also don't think that knife show owners should be forced to sell knives to people, or go into prison and bankruptcy, who state they are buying them to commit violent acts with even when the victim is consenting as part of an S/M behavior.
And I'm speaking of morality in its normative sense not the relativistic construct you were taught in the failing liberal controlled public education system. In it's normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever is actually right or wrong independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative immorality has been clearly defined in Western normative ethics for a long time.
But you're apparently fine with locking up every genuine Christian in prison with murders and rapists, making them a life-long felon, bankrupting them and their families, etc... because they won't violate their free moral conscience (a human right under natural law) and surrender their religious convictions toward a historical normative morality (something the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent) and bow their knee to Baal and support events that are normatively immoral.
That places you in alignment with the devil against them and guilty of tyrannical oppression of moral everyday Christians.
The fact that you'd use the government to destroy them over a cake, an order of flowers, or a batch of photographs highlights how evil your position really is.
If you're referring to cases such as the baker who lost his job for refusing service to homosexuals, it wasn't the gay agenda that did him through. He had his business shut down due to a state law forbidding any form of discrimination of service. I'll agree with you that these laws shouldn't exist - because people should be allowed to serve whomever they want. But you need to understand two things. 1. This has nothing to do with the CEO losing his job. 2. This has to do with a state law that's enforcing a pre-existing law that wasn't created to solely protect homosexuals.
Because that wouldn't be a sufficient answer. Saying, "it's wrong because it's wrong" gets us nowhere. Yes, a man having sexual feelings for a child is a sick attraction - but why is it a sick attraction? I did what I could to answer that question.
The problem is, you can just as easily argue that heterosexuality is a sick attraction, as much as homosexuality. Saying something is a sick attraction fails to offer an actual explanation. You might as well argue, "I think it's icky, therefore it's icky."
I never said the problem lies with the kids. I said the reason lies with the kids. The problem are people violating children. It's absolutely disgusting you tried to turn this around to make it look like I was victim blaming. I clearly wasn't.
When someone says, "Children aren't mature enough to have consensual sex", do you also treat them as if they're blaming the children? Your integrity is non-existent.
