Homophobic Chick-fil-A take two: Now Colorado bakery REFUSES to bake wedding cake for gay couple

Jul 31, 2012 Full story: Daily Mail 648

A Colorado cake shop has received scores of complaints and been targeted by protestors after it refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Full Story

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#566 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it funny that gays refer to heteros who are only recounting the typical witnessed/demonstrable/observe d behavior of practiced promiscuity amongst the gay community as "stereotyping" them.
We're just calling it as we've seen it and wouldn't have it to recount here if the gay community weren't a bunch of sluts.
Same goes for the spread of numerous/ALL STD's!
Just saying.
OK, then let me tell you sometime about all of the "typical witnessed/demonstrable/observe d behavior of practiced promiscuity amongst the hetero community! It could fill pages!

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#567 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it funny that gays refer to heteros who are only recounting the typical witnessed/demonstrable/observe d behavior of practiced promiscuity amongst the gay community as "stereotyping" them.
We're just calling it as we've seen it and wouldn't have it to recount here if the gay community weren't a bunch of sluts.
Same goes for the spread of numerous/ALL STD's!
Just saying.
Just because you may have seen one slightly "camp" (feminine) or seemingly promiscuous gay man or woman, doesn't mean you know the moral standards of EVERY SINGLE GAY MAN OR WOMAN ON THIS PLANET.

If I seem a hooker on the street smoking drugs and selling her body, covered in STD's, I wouldn't stereotype straight people and say all straight people were like that, because that was the behaviour I observed in one person.

I know a lot of straight people who are thugs, wife-beaters, alcohols and much bigger "sluts" than gay people. Take a 5 minute walk down the street and you'll see at least one teen pregnancy.

Just saying.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#568 Aug 9, 2012
Apologies, the second paragraph was meant to say "If I had seen".

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#569 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
The intent was to subliminally remind the reviewer that we are, have, and will always be, genetically predisposed to be men and women as much as we are predisposed to be attracted to one another/the opposite sex from that which we are individually, but I guess that went over your head?
<quoted text>
No, you do not and I dare you to prove, with immutable evidence, otherwise.
<quoted text>
'Knowing' that you are of either this or that sexual predisposition does not automatically imply that you are genetically predisposed to be so.
<quoted text>
As well you shouldn't as I am but what I have stated I am which, as it just so happens, coincides with my genetic sexual predisposition.
But I am not and never have been predisposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I never made a choice to be homosexual. Regardless of the cause it remains a basic truth about me. To claim that we all have the same innate sexual orientation is not supported by science.
just an allusion wrote:
Actually, yes, they have...They are encoded within the 'X' and 'Y' chromosomes with the female having two(2)'X' chromosomes and the male having an 'X' and a 'Y' chromosome which contains the genetic markers for testicular development...Look it up some time for yourself:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_G...
X and Y chromosomes determine GENDER! Not sexual orientation. I stand by my statement that science have not isolated the genes or cause for any person's sexual orientation -- Homosexual or heterosexual.

To claim that because someone is male they must automatically be sexually attracted to females is not supported by current facts.
just an allusion wrote:
I am not attempting to "force" anything upon you, only pointing out the irrefutable FACT that you are NOT living up to what you were always meant to be because you are acting outside of your inherent, genetically predisposed nature, FACTS which I have repeatedly supported with verifiable data instead of merely insisting that I am right because, well, I say so.
No, you have not supported your claim by any fact. So any attempt by you to enforce an orthodoxy of behavior based upon your opinion is coercive.

“and how does this effect you?”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#570 Aug 9, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>yes. They would be better off.
my friend had children from a previous relationship before she came out, her girlfriend loves and takes care of those children better than any step dad I've seen. I don't think a child would be better off in an orphanage than with two people who love him. To think otherwise is crazy. Children who are never adopted grow up looking for love (any kind of love) in all the wrong places!
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#571 Aug 9, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But I am not and never have been predisposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. I never made a choice to be homosexual. Regardless of the cause it remains a basic truth about me. To claim that we all have the same innate sexual orientation is not supported by science.
<quoted text>
X and Y chromosomes determine GENDER! Not sexual orientation. I stand by my statement that science have not isolated the genes or cause for any person's sexual orientation -- Homosexual or heterosexual.
To claim that because someone is male they must automatically be sexually attracted to females is not supported by current facts.
<quoted text>

No, you have not supported your claim by any fact. So any attempt by you to enforce an orthodoxy of behavior based upon your opinion is coercive.
No doubt your self diagnosis of your orientation is accurate. It is not accurate however to claim that homosexuality exists as the phenomina many gay activist claim it to be.

The science of orientation is quite different than what gay "rights" supporters present in a politicized effort to establish a fixed and large number with immutability at its core.

“The point is subtle and powerful, and addresses a confusing false symmetry that activists attempt to create between heterosexuality and homosexuality, as though they were somehow two equivalent poles or ends of a spectrum, the numerically minority status of one being an incidental and trivial fact. In other words, the data illustrates “just how normative heterosexuality is,” even for homosexuals. The converse—“just how normative homosexuality is, even for heterosexuals”—is false. Heterosexuality exerts a constant, normative pull throughout the life cycle upon everyone.(There is no parallel with race: One cannot say,“Findings indicate just how normative whiteness is, but not blackness,” nor its converse.)

Jeffrey Satinover M.D. Ph.D.
McGruff

Elizabethtown, KY

#572 Aug 9, 2012
Kimberling wrote:
<quoted text>my friend had children from a previous relationship before she came out, her girlfriend loves and takes care of those children better than any step dad I've seen. I don't think a child would be better off in an orphanage than with two people who love him. To think otherwise is crazy. Children who are never adopted grow up looking for love (any kind of love) in all the wrong places!
according to you.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#573 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
The "outcome", the "significant difference" of children raised under the guidance of gay parents is that the children are neuro-linguistically and sociologically conditioned to perceive homosexuality as a "normal" aspect of Human life, as but a valid, alternative to living a heterosexual existence because they are raised in an environment conducive to the proliferation of the adverse behavior and ideology.
You must have accidentally left t.hat part out of your "study"
Well Einstein, your theory sucks, because if that were the case, then there would be no homosexual children born of straight parents, because they would all be "raised in an enviroment conducive to the proliferation of" heterosexual idealogy, and thus, all be heterosexual.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#574 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it funny that gays refer to heteros who are only recounting the typical witnessed/demonstrable/observe d behavior of practiced promiscuity amongst the gay community as "stereotyping" them.
We're just calling it as we've seen it and wouldn't have it to recount here if the gay community weren't a bunch of sluts.
Same goes for the spread of numerous/ALL STD's!
Just saying.
It is true that stereotypes are based in truth. I'll give you that one. But the reason it's called a stereotype and not a truth is because it is not always true. There are all types in all populations. You're going to tell me that there aren't a bunch of male and female heteros running around porking anything on 2 legs? You're also going to tell me that a hetero never got an STD? Not true. And there are homos that have never gotten STDs. You just can't focus your ideas in such a black and white sense. It takes all colors to make a rainbow.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#575 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted, it IS 'naturally intrinsic' to be attracted to Beauty which, as it just so happens, comes in a great many shapes and forms in this world, in this Universe, and even within our very selves.
As a matter of fact Beauty is so mercurial, so fluidic, in its nature that it can be found in something as seemingly insignificant as silence (just ask someone who has moved to the suburbs, or a rural area even, after having lived in the city for years), such is the way of Beauty that it can be found where ever any of us may choose to look or conceive of.
As such, there is nothing at all wrong with the acknowledgement or recognition of Beauty in another person, but that does not mean that one should physically interact with them in a manner that is against our intrinsic, biological nature merely because we find them appealing to the eye...At some point in the interaction between recognition and action conscience must come into play so that the initial attraction wanes and ones' attentions are turned towards those of the opposite sex, as is the genetically-based intention of our beings.
Oh my friend... you are so so SO very disillusioned. It's so much more than that. I'm sorry for you that you will never understand. It is as engrained and natural for us to be the way we are as it is for you to be the way you are. It's just the way it is. And you would never ever understand unless you stood in our shoes, which you never will, because you are straight. The same that we are gay. Just as God made us.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#576 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
DaveinMass wrote:
But to get to your post, I have an inherent genetic predisposition attraction for the same sex. So we do not all have an intrinsically ingrained/programmed attraction for the opposite sex.

No, you do not and I dare you to prove, with immutable evidence, otherwise.[/quote]

As well we ask you to do the same. If it can't be proven either way (and it can't), why fight about it?

[QUOTE who="just an allusion"]<quoted text>
DaveinMass wrote:
And before you claim that science has not found the genes that make a person a homosexual, they have not found the genes that make a person a heterosexual yet either.
Actually, yes, they have...They are encoded within the 'X' and 'Y' chromosomes with the female having two(2)'X' chromosomes and the male having an 'X' and a 'Y' chromosome which contains the genetic markers for testicular development...Look it up some time for yourself:
And there you go confusing gender and sexuality again. x and y chromosomes do nothing but determine physical gender. It has nothing to do with gender identity, sexuality, or orientation. Gender only. If you beleive they are the same thing, please explain the phenomenon of hermaphrodites to me. And explain why some people are completely asexual. And we are genetically assigned to be "straight" by our gender, then WHY ARE WE GAY?!?!? I really want to know that. Good ideas, dude, but we are still here. If it was genetically impossible, then it wouldn't exist.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#577 Aug 9, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt your self diagnosis of your orientation is accurate. It is not accurate however to claim that homosexuality exists as the phenomina many gay activist claim it to be.
The science of orientation is quite different than what gay "rights" supporters present in a politicized effort to establish a fixed and large number with immutability at its core.
“The point is subtle and powerful, and addresses a confusing false symmetry that activists attempt to create between heterosexuality and homosexuality, as though they were somehow two equivalent poles or ends of a spectrum, the numerically minority status of one being an incidental and trivial fact. In other words, the data illustrates “just how normative heterosexuality is,” even for homosexuals. The converse—“just how normative homosexuality is, even for heterosexuals”—is false. Heterosexuality exerts a constant, normative pull throughout the life cycle upon everyone.(There is no parallel with race: One cannot say,“Findings indicate just how normative whiteness is, but not blackness,” nor its converse.)
Jeffrey Satinover M.D. Ph.D.
Okay. But Satinover still does not know what causes a person to be homosexual or heterosexual.

And, if as he says that "Heterosexuality exerts a constant, normative pull throughout the life cycle upon everyone," then the very existence of homosexuals proves that there is something stronger than 'choice' exerting a 'pull' or maybe a 'push' to make a person homosexual. That heterosexual pull is what caused gays and lesbian to hide to so many years and yes, to marry someone of the opposite sex. But now that more and more gays and lesbians are coming out, at younger and younger ages, and adapting/adopting previously exclusively heterosexual institutions (most notably adoption and marriage) wouldn't you agree that that heterosexual pull has lessened, and will continue to do so, over the years. Afterall, that pull he describes is more culturally based than biologically based.

“and how does this effect you?”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#578 Aug 9, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>according to you.
yeah, I have seen it happen. It's called experience!

“and how does this effect you?”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#579 Aug 9, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>according to you.
how many children have you adopted? If you don't want gays to adopt them, how many have you adopted?
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#580 Aug 9, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. But Satinover still does not know what causes a person to be homosexual or heterosexual.
And, if as he says that "Heterosexuality exerts a constant, normative pull throughout the life cycle upon everyone," then the very existence of homosexuals proves that there is something stronger than 'choice' exerting a 'pull' or maybe a 'push' to make a person homosexual. That heterosexual pull is what caused gays and lesbian to hide to so many years and yes, to marry someone of the opposite sex. But now that more and more gays and lesbians are coming out, at younger and younger ages, and adapting/adopting previously exclusively heterosexual institutions (most notably adoption and marriage) wouldn't you agree that that heterosexual pull has lessened, and will continue to do so, over the years. Afterall, that pull he describes is more culturally based than biologically based.
No - I would not agree. Indeed te review of thestudies Im quoting from show this trend to be constant even in gay tolerant countries like Denmark.

Andhe dosen maintain tha it is more culturaly than biologically based either. There are studies out of Australia that show one is more likly to identify as gay if one went to college. Perhapsthis denotesthat the identification itself is ften culturally induced.

One possibility also is that many people who would not have identified as gay in the past or experimented with same-sex relationships are now doing so because of it popularity culturally. So rather than more peopel "coming-out" perhaps its more people assuming an identity for a time that they normally would not.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#581 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
P.S. Many gays have demonstrated the ability to function normally in society, though few have demonstrated the capacity to maintain monogamous relationships, preferring promiscuity over monogamy, or even so-called "open" relationships wherein a pair will live together and contribute to the overall welfare of the pair while entertaining several partners/outside of their own pairing.
And people wonder at the spread of STD's...?!?
There is a boat load of promiscuity and non monogomy in all walks of life, gay and straight. You really can't single out one group when it comes to that. Besides which, those people rarely get married, or they get divorced once it becomes an issue. How is that any different the way society already is?

Promiscuity is the cause of STDs. You are correct in that, but it is absurd to think that only gay people have transmitted it. If that were true, then why are there straight people with every STD in the book, and why are babies born with AIDS?

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#582 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's the way it sometimes works out, you go out and get all educated and such and then no one can understand you anymore.
Education, it's a wonderful thing, you have a better, more complete understanding of the World in which we live which helps you to discern when someone is trying to put one over on you because it sharpens your focus to enable you to better see the BS, but almost everyone else is content in not knowing because ignorance of the facts are an encouraged sociological condition because it makes it easier for those that so desire to control and manipulate the masses.
I'll try to tone down the rhetoric, just try to understand that the terms I use are the sort you encounter when discussing such matters.
You claim to be so educated yet, you obviously haven't read a psych book or pyschological study in the last 50 years.

The funniest thing about this post is that you perfectly described yourself in your statement about ignorance of fact.

I call BS.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#583 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
So you, too, are impressed are you tinkerbell?
Perhaps you should read my above post to Jupiter so you can get clued in on just whom it is that you are interacting with, not that I'm trying to blow my own whistle (as the colloquial saying goes), rather, only to let you know that I am known around these parts for being EXACTLY what I say I am, once even being commonly referred to as the "local genius", so consider yourself fairly warned.
Wow. For lack of a better term, you really are a douche bag. I read your posts and I'm not impressed with your ability to make your opinion appear as fact. Again, I call BS.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#584 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to belittle your input by not responding directly to it, it is just that I have already covered the issue(s) you've raised in my replies to RnL2008:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T2TUA5UDM...
DaveinMass:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T2TUA5UDM...
And Jupiter:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T2TUA5UDM...
The combination of which addresses every contention you've raised conclusively.
Thank you.
Yet none of those posts contain any factual information at all. Nothing but uninformed opinion written in big fancy words. Good job, bud. But I STILL call BS!(My education allows me to see when someone is trying to pull one over on me and see through the BS.. mainly your BS, as in your degree.)

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#585 Aug 9, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe, just maybe, it is because our (heterosexual) interactions/practices/behavio rs/mannerisms have not been scientifically and medically proven to generate NUMEROUS diseases (like each and every STD known to Man), as well as pose serious, even fatal, health risks to ourselves and everyone else with whom we interact with, not to mention working to dispel/displace the historical representation of the family and couple, undermining the heretofore ascended sociological constructs that have enabled us to progress our culture as a civilized people beyond that of primordial times...?!
(Disclaimer: Extreme REALITY intended)
And just look... the human race is still going strong all this time later, even with all of homos not procreating. There's a master plan, my friend and none of us are qualified to say exactly what it is. All I know is that God does not make mistakes. He made each and every one of us just as we were meant to be. Why, we will never know. But isn't our diversity beautiful?

BTW, your pretty lies still aren't facts. Just because you say the Earth is flat, doesn't make it so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 11 min KiMare 609
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 15 min KiMare 1,019
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 1 hr Brian_G 219,479
Obama must take action on LGBT rights overseas 3 hr yehoshooah adam 11
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 3 hr Ratloder the scum 1,998
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,106
Shayne Looper: Whatever happened to tolerance o... 5 hr Jumper The wise 8
GOP leader: NC officials can refuse to marry gays 5 hr Jumper The wise 37
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 5 hr Prosperity Fundie... 1,538
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 5 hr Zombie Corpse Rental 160

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE