free societies have rule of law. there are things that we don't allow, refusing to make laws supporting the right thing for fear of backlash is foolish. As is leaving places that make us uncomefortable as Aeolus451 keeps suggesting. Sometimes lines need to be drawn. The idea of, sit and wait history is on your side isn't good enough. Popular ideas beat out unpopular ideas, good has nothing to do with it.

I understand that it will take a long time for them to change their opinion and I'm trying to think of something that might work temporalily for both sides until things change. I don't like the whole "force them to do it anyway" approach. If people want real change then go after the belief behind their actions. Not just the actions themselves. It would be a hollow victory just to force religious people to take homosexuals as costumers. By taking a less abrasive approach in attempting to sway their opinion, they would be more willing to listen or compromise. Trying to bulldoze everything out of the way won't work.

As a person who grew up without religion (and also, not knowing what religion was for much of my childhood), I agree. People don't inherently know that they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. It's not until someone else tells them that they are. Also, I think spirituality is not the right word. Imagination is the more fitting term since it requires that to form concepts of a god, spirits, charms, and so forth.

1. Are they actually commiting the sins (or do they believe they are) in those other cases? You were providing a lot of hypothetical statements in your posts as well. Does it really matter whether or not it is the same as other people's religious views? They are religious views nevertheless. Why do the views even have to be religious? Why can't people refuse to do something based on their personal morals and ethic system? I know many non-relgious homophobes.  

Many churches have refused to do weddings for gay couples. Hell, there was a recent case where a church refused a black couple (minister performed the ceremony at another church.) 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/story?id=16878536

2. That is your opinion. As a gay person, I think the slogan has benefitted the movement greatly. My point was that such religious people view things like this as a consequence of legalizing gay marriage, and therefore can use it to create laws like this one or they might not support gay marriage laws in their states, due to a growing animosity. Obviously the demand from this law isn't a because a small minority of people supported it. If it passed it was because it was the sentiment of a lot of people in the state it passed in. Also, expecting the government to take care of people who are discriminated against is even more naive, because it was the government that was responsible for much of the discrimination in history. 

It is foolish to create the legal groundwork in which the same people you want to force yourself upon can force their views on you. You are subsidising the efforts of the people you oppose by creating an institution that forces one groups beliefs onto another. In a truly free society all people can live with their own separate belief systems.  

Sure, but the religious belief originated somewhere in order to become a tradition to pass down. I know plenty of non-religious homophobes. One of the reasons we developed any religion, for example, is because we are self aware of our own deaths. That is something very much biological as other species are not self aware that one day their existence as the being they are will end. Human culture is very much based on humanity's biological reality. 

This thread has really gone to the shitter.

Hello again STAGE.

At bolded, that might sometimes be the case but is it always? Go to u-tube and watch some of the gay pride parades. or better yet check out:

this notice the dildo on the end of the mic? Notice all the cuts in that video.  This is meant to make the opposition look stupid. It is meant to undermine the beliefs of the oposition not simply to try to exist in peace as you put it.

So what beliefe behind the  action should people go after for those who don't want to serve gay people? Should I argue with scritpure? Should I point out where they folllow one part but not another? Should I point out how the society that those rules were founded around is long gone? I can try many of those but what it eventually comes down to is rules. The rules that are set forth from religion and those set forth by the law. There comes a point where is people won't change how they look at the rules from the religions there will be a conflict and there isn't a less abrasive approch left.

Being told that my existence is the equialvelent to a religion, is dehumanizing, being refused equal protection under the law because way back when being me was illegal doesn't make any sence. People are too stuck on a few lines of text and focus on the negatives of religion instead of the positives. 

and why not have that work both ways. If the religious really think that what they want is so right why not find less abrassive ways of getting people not to "live in sin" Is refusing business going to make people change their "sinning ways"?

Didn't Utah just bring back excutions by firing squad? lol