CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail

There are 20 comments on the Gateway Pundit story from Dec 8, 2013, titled CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail. In it, Gateway Pundit reports that:

Gay activists protest the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012. Owner Jack Phillips now faces charges for not baking a cake for the gay couple.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Gateway Pundit.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#6502 Feb 3, 2014
Megan's Law III (Act 152) was enacted on November 24, 2004 and was repealed by the newly enacted Adam Walsh Act that went into effect on December 20, 2012. Megan's Law III contained a new definition for "predatory" from Megan's Law II (previously declared unconstitutional). New sentencing hearings may need to be held to address this change.

It also contained many registration requirements as well as the crime of "failure to comply with registration of sexual offender requirements." 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4915. That crime itself, which is now a nullity, is the basis for many convictions and mandatory sentences across the Commonwealth. Likewise, the conviction for such an offense may have been the basis for substantial revocation time on a state parole backhit. It's no longer a crime and those computations by the PA Board of Probation and Parole will need to reassessed.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#6503 Feb 3, 2014
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/08/...

In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” Ron Paul.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#6504 Feb 3, 2014
""""Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.""""

We have to make sure the baker's customers are 10% gay customers.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#6505 Feb 3, 2014
I need CPeter1313 the voice of reason
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#6506 Feb 3, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
""""A law is unconstitutional if the law is either facially in violation of some provision of the Constitution because the words of the law are prohibited by the express provisions of the Constitution, or, the law as applied violates a provision of the Constitution because, in practice, the law violates a provision of the Constitution. To show the difference, take for example a law that said newspapers cannot print stories about politicians. This would facially violate the First Amendment because the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Showing an example of a law that is unconstitutional as applied requires a bit more depth. Take the example of a law that says no animal may be killed within the Shakopee city limits. This law would presumably be constitutionally sound on its face because there is no part of the Constitution that limits the power of the government to regulate animal slaughter. However, if this law was aimed at preventing a religious group from practicing its religion through animal sacrifice (religious exercise, regardless of how unusual it might be, is specifically protected by the First Amendment), that law as applied would violate the First Amendment because the law was directed at infringing that group’s right to exercise its religious practices.""" "
Discriminating against gay people in one's place of business is NOT part of ANYBODY'S religious practice. It is bigotry, plain and simple.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#6508 Feb 3, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
http://www.conservativedailyne ws.com/2013/08/are-anti-discri mination-laws-unconstitutional /
In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a psychotic wing-nut.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, established the Constitutionality of the law
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#6509 Feb 3, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about children under 14 or over 14? I do not even like to see adults come onto other consenting adults in say a business situation. It is totally inappropriate.
However if you go to the local meat rack and some one tells you you look sexy, well, what are you doing in the meat rack? The gays in here complained about me going to the leather bar in the city and not liking being groped as we sardined ourselves through the crowd, and I admit had I of known I would not of gone. But now that I know, I do not go back, I do not go to the government and demand a law.
There are cases of 12 year old children sexually molesting, raping and even murdering younger children. Clearly some children know what sex is all about and are sophisticated criminals at the age of 12.
We need to not only tell kids to report being touched but to tell them they are not to do any touching of anyone who does not want to be touched.
Since homosexuality is not a normal expression of human sexuality, I don't think kids should be exposed to it until they are adults. Homosexuality should not be promoted in schools any more than pedophila, beastiality, swinging, S&M should be taught in schools. it should be up to the parents how they want to educate their children about it. This is a decision that should be made by adults. These 12 year old sexual molesters and murderers are hardly sophisticated....they are mentally ill. There is a good chance they were abused themselves. So no, they do not know what sex is all about which is why adult topics like homosexuality should be left to the parents. It is not the government's place to be involved in something that should be under parental domain.

Workplace sexual advances can be construed as harassment....of course it is inappropriate.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#6510 Feb 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's so cute when you post such transparent lies. Clearly, you don't understand the difference between the two, because you keep on comparing them as though they are synonymous, or even related. Nothing could be further from the truth.
<quoted text>
Of course, this is nothing more than your opinion and has no basis in fact.
"Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/r...
Grow up, liar.
I'm afraid you are the liar since you continue to spew false accusations. Please explain where I said homosexuals and pedophiles are synonymous. They are not. Homosexuals tend to overrepresent themselves as pedophiles but that does not make the two synonymous. It appears YOU think they are the same.

Considering your research has rainbow in it's address, I can't be surprised such a 'study' would fully support the gay agenda. I will also bet same sex attacks on those children were not classified as homosexual and thus skewing the results. Regnerus came out with a study that was not politically correct and caused the left from all corners of the country to attack him and discredit his findings. The University of TX, which is an extremely liberal school, cleared him of academic misconduct. The backlash is meant to intimidate and discourage anyone from publishing findings that will conflict with the homosexual agenda. Big money, the media, Hollywood and most of academia is liberal and will not tolerate anything that deviates from their ideals.

So close your eyes,stamp your feet and keep pretending all research points to homosexuals/lesbians/bi as all rainbows and butterflies.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#6511 Feb 3, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people are born with chemical imbalances whether they enjoy sex with men or women or nobody. Women have in the past accepted second class citizenship and blacks were abused more after slavery was ended. Gays stayed in the closet and only recently have they made their presence known in any meaningful way. That is why the abuse started, "Get back in the closet you pervert" was the threat.
I am saying when you beat people down it effects their mental stability. And I further say no one has the right to make other people feel bad about themselves no matter how enjoyable they find the activity.
I do not watch the nightly news. I watch John Stossel and The Independents.
Not baking a cake for someone is not beating someone down. Women and other minorities have faced many obstacles throughout history and yet they were not high risk for suicide....murder but not suicide. For some reason, homosexual people are high risk. This suggests there may be a link to mental illness after all.

People have a right to be sickened by same sex acts and they too shouldn't be 'beaten down' for their beliefs. If you think gays are being beaten down...what about the job you have been doing on Christians or those who follow some kind of organized religion? Some of your posts are extremely cruel, bigoted and insensitive.....what's with the hypocrisy?

I say to each his own so long as children are not involved. Once they are in the picture then someone else's rights are being affected. Children are not able to make adult decisions and say yes or no to being adopted by homosexuals. This is why it is unfair to impose this on a child.

Who are the Independents?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6512 Feb 3, 2014
Kinsey wasn't gay; if anything, he was bisexual with a preference for women. He didn't plat around with children, either.

Honey, the article you pilfered CAME FROM catholicculture.

The only ones who said the molesting priests were gay was the church and was NOT borne out by the facts. The nazi pope needed a scapegoat.
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Kinsey was gay although that didn't keep him from having sex with women and even playing around with children. Kinsey was a very 'dark' person.....very strange.
Go back and read because not one of the sources listed was from catholicculture. I do believe there are studies that have found the incidents of molestation among Catholic priests was because they were homosexual priests.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6513 Feb 3, 2014
Being arrested means an officer of the law takes you into custody, which triggers an entire process. It is not the same as being served a summons to appear in court on your own recognizance.

Guilt or innocence under the law is determined in the trial portion of our legal system; you don't have to be arrested to stand trial. In some circumstances, you don't even have to be there.
Reverend Alan wrote:
Comrade peter1313: Facing charges is not the same as being arrested. We've been through this.
ALAN: What we have been through is: """CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail."""
You want me to accept the baker is facing charges, which is different than being arrested yet it says at the top of my screen that he was """Found Guilty""". Please explain how one who is facing charges but has not been arrested can be """Found Guilty."""

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6514 Feb 3, 2014
And I was one of those gay people who worked to make things better for gays. You were the one stealing hors d'oeurves at parties and bitching because gay men groped you in a gay bar.
Reverend Alan wrote:
comrade peter1313: It takes no time at all to insult you; you make it both easy and necessary.
ALAN: Irrelevant! It proves you can't back up your wholly unconvincing assertions and are not honest enough to admit to it. That makes you shallow.
comrade peter: You self-important closet queen...
ALAN: More name calling. This does not explain why I support the gay community more than you do, nor why I like the idea of pew warming bigots going out of business which gives their employees the opportunity to work for gay people. Gay people, people you do not like very much.
comrade peter: you don't support gays; you patronize them.
ALAN: All anyone has to do is read my posts and they will know I am more supportive of gay people than you are. What is patronizing about saying gay people are responsible for the acceptance they now enjoy and the credit for that should not be given to the government? I applaud gay people for the success they have had in getting the rights they have always had recognized by the Government. You have the cart before the horse comrade peter, as most authoritarians do. Gay people brought attention to the fact that their rights were being violated and the government followed; gay people led and the government followed. Gay people deserve the credit and NOT the government. I am sad you can't see this and give credit where it is due.
Comrade peter: YOU were the one bitching about him maybe losing his bakery over this. Do you not remembeer your own outrages?
ALAN: Please identify the post number and the page number where I ever bitched that he was being put out of business. I said that gay people and their friends refusing to patronize a pew warming bigots business would put him out of business, AND THAT IS A GOOD THING!
Once out of business, his employees will be working for the gay business down the street, instead of a bigot business. I would rather people work for gay people than for bigots and you object to that. You want the pew warming bigot kept in business by the governments passing of unfair, unjust and unconstitutional laws which force him to bake gay wedding cakes.
You have falsely accused me once again. I support the gay community more than you do. And you think calling me gay is an insult. It may be to a pew warming bigot baker, but it is not to me. I am opposed to bigotry and discrimination and you want it to thrive. I will never agree with that so you might as well stop trying to convince me that bigotry needs to survive and flourish in America.
<quoted text>

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6515 Feb 3, 2014
" It means the government is not the proper means of effecting this change."
Which is an opinion. Nothing more.
Reverend Alan wrote:
Previously Reverend Alan: Proponents of anti-discrimination laws such as this can boycott companies, protest landlords, or use other persuasive and peaceful means to seek the change they desire. These are market-based, non-governmental solutions which have worked before and can work in the future. But the government is not the proper means of effecting this change, because no inherent and individual authority exists which can be delegated to the institution. Does anyone know what that means? It means the government is not the proper means of effecting this change.
<quoted text>
WRONG again comrade peter! Gay people have successfully boycotted giant American corporations in the past and changed their policies. For instance, from this:
http://rense.com/general12/coors.htm
For generations, Coors has supplied beer to American men in prodigious quantities. Trading on its clean-cut image as a proud defender of national tradition, it has climbed to become the third largest brewer in the US. It has bolstered its position as a defender of family values by supporting right- wing causes, championing a range of anti-gay movements.
The company's critics say the Coors clan boasts a long record of funding anti-gay groups such as Free Congress and the Heritage Foundation through the family-owned Castle Rock Foundation. Jeffrey Coors, a Free Congress trustee, was the group's chairman in 1996 when it filed a complaint in a Hawaii court case over gay marriage, calling homosexual sex 'an infamous crime against nature'.
ALAN: To this: http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/hot_iss...
Coors hikes spending on gay ads
Coors Brewing Co. is making a record spending push for the company into the gay market.
Its new print effort, a Coors Light campaign that plays off Grant Wood's painting "American Gothic," marks the start of a bolder effort by the country's No. 3 brewer to capture a greater share among gays, a group prized for their brand loyalty and high disposable income levels.
"When you have your biggest competitors investing heavily in a very brand-loyal beer drinking audience, you need to be there. You just can't ignore that," said Joe Landry, publisher of The Advocate.
Previous gay-targeted efforts by brewers, including Coors, tended to be either general-market ads placed in gay publications, gay-oriented promotions, or general-market ads with the addition of the six-color rainbow flag, an emblem of the gay community. But that's changing fast.
A NEW LEVEL
"Courting the gay consumer has reached a different level in beer marketing. It's just not enough to include ads in gay publications. In order to get away from the clutter and competition, they are trying to get a big impact with gay-specific ads," said Todd Evans, CEO at Rivendale Marketing, which tracks ad spending in national and local gay-oriented publications.
ALAN: Gay people have brought change to the 3rd largest brewery in America Comrade peter. Why you always underestimate the power gay people have is a mystery to me. Gay people brought Coors to its knees with out a bit of help from the government. Gay people lead and the government follows. I support the gay community more than you ever would. I switched from Coors to Budweiser and we refused to carry Coors.
...
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#6516 Feb 3, 2014
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text> This fool is like any good homophobic bigot. he wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit him.
People have a right to be disgusted if they want. It doesn't make them a bigot. I throw up if I see or hear snot projecting outward without a tissue. This was problematic if you were within earshot of certain athletes. It certainly didn't make me a bigot towards those kids who made me vomit.

Forced to live in a dorm as a freshman, I was exposed to all kinds of different people. One Friday night, I accidentally walked into the wrong room and witnessed two guys having sex. It was disgusting to me but that doesn't make me homophobic. I had every right to be repulsed which was why I left immediately. They harassed me the next day in the cafeteria because of my expression. They thought it was sooooo funny and invited me back. I'm not sure why so many think gays are some kind of victims. Many gays I met were aggressive, confident and a little mean.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#6517 Feb 3, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
http://www.conservativedailyne ws.com/2013/08/are-anti-discri mination-laws-unconstitutional /
In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” Ron Paul.
A little FYI the civil rights was co written by a REPUBLICAN. A very conservative one at that.

That republican name.. Everett McKinley Dirksen. He was the Senate Minority Leader at the time.. Google it..

By the way the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional. It has with stood many of the challenges in front of the Supreme Court. Just because you and your fellow travelers do not like it. Does make it unconstitutional. dolt.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#6518 Feb 3, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Being arrested means an officer of the law takes you into custody, which triggers an entire process. It is not the same as being served a summons to appear in court on your own recognizance.
Guilt or innocence under the law is determined in the trial portion of our legal system; you don't have to be arrested to stand trial. In some circumstances, you don't even have to be there.
<quoted text>
This fool not only does not understand the law. He has no clue as to the legal process..

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6519 Feb 3, 2014
Maybe the food quality suffered because we shifted focus from partying to political action. It's hard to concentrate on your lemon-pepper souffle with lime glacee when the people around you are dying from a virus the government is flat-out ignoring. You sent groceries you could easily afford; I'm sure they were appreciated. I was teaching safe sex and helping to clean up advanced-AIDS patients we couldn't get nurses to touch, when I wasn't holding a dying man's hand as he slipped away, because no one should die alone. I helped organize this city's first gay pride event and did benefits for HIV education.

For some self-sucking moron to imply that he is more supportive of my community than I am is just a testament to how divorced from reality you are.
Reverend Alan wrote:
cpeter1313: Yeah, we just LOVE it when little straight boys come to parties just to eat the food.
ALAN: Me little? LOL! You need some new insults Comrade peter. I explained that I went for more than the food. There was a swimming pool and I like to swim. Plus my cousin was down in the dumps for some reason I don't remember and I wanted to cheer him up. He wanted to stay home and feel sorry for himself and I wanted to cheer him up, hey lets go to that BBQ swim party you wanted to go to! Leave it to you Comrade peter to twist my words and insinuate some evil intention on my part.
Comrade peter: How very...supportive of you.
ALAN: I guess my volunteer work and generous contributions at the AIDS food bank don't count? Not to mention all the healthy organic fruits and vegetables I donated from our greenhouses and gardens.
Comrade peter: So sorry we're disappointing you on the food.
ALAN: You should be. Back in the day gay people cooked and I am talking gourmet! Although I was not half bad judging from the empty bowl I brought home. This one guy made this crab mouse that was to die for. He congratulated me on the spicy shrimp in my homemade achiote sauce. We both shared first place in the "who brought the best dish" contest. My cousin gave me a big hug for being one of the winners and thanked me for dragging him out of the house and making him attend. Everyone thought I was his boyfriend and I didn't correct anyone. So keep your mind in the gutter Comrade peter, but life is to be lived.
Comrade peter: Feed yourself, you selfish twit.
ALAN: There you are again, ordering people around and insulting people. You should be ashamed of yourself. We all know who the selfish twit is.
Comrade peter: The priest was a pervert? You're an idiot.
ALAN: You know nothing about this perverted priest. I am looking for his arrest record so I can once again prove you are deceitful, disrespectful and deceptive in addition to this habit you have of calling people names when you are shown to be wrong. When I find his arrest record I will post it and then we'll know who the idiot is.
Comrade peter: Like I said, fu** off and die. While yo0u were leeching off our parties and getting pissed off at gay bars, we were fighting for basic rights and legal equality.
ALAN: "Leeching"? I guess that is why I always got invited back. I thought it was my tight little speedo swim suit, but even when I was fully clothed I was invited back to gay parties. It just kills you doesn't it that gay people might actually like me. And picking up pills off of the floors of gay bars and offering to split them with other customers is not fighting the government to recognize and protect the rights of gay men and women.
And neither is keeping bigots in business by refusing to support gay owned businesses.
You still refuse to explain what unconstitutional means.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#6520 Feb 3, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Kinsey wasn't gay; if anything, he was bisexual with a preference for women. He didn't plat around with children, either.
Honey, the article you pilfered CAME FROM catholicculture.
The only ones who said the molesting priests were gay was the church and was NOT borne out by the facts. The nazi pope needed a scapegoat.
<quoted text>
Oh please......Kinsey was absolutely gay. He was into rough sex play, sex with animals. He touched babies hoping they would have orgasms and wrote about it in his 'research'. No wonder you want to distance yourself from him. Somehow I doubt Judith Reisman is Catholic although there was someone who also wrote about this kook who wrote for a Catholic publication. Her work should have been taken seriously by the Catholics because there could have been a large number of children who would have been saved from all those homosexual priests.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#6521 Feb 3, 2014
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>People have a right to be disgusted if they want. It doesn't make them a bigot. I throw up if I see or hear snot projecting outward without a tissue. This was problematic if you were within earshot of certain athletes. It certainly didn't make me a bigot towards those kids who made me vomit.
Forced to live in a dorm as a freshman, I was exposed to all kinds of different people. One Friday night, I accidentally walked into the wrong room and witnessed two guys having sex. It was disgusting to me but that doesn't make me homophobic. I had every right to be repulsed which was why I left immediately. They harassed me the next day in the cafeteria because of my expression. They thought it was sooooo funny and invited me back. I'm not sure why so many think gays are some kind of victims. Many gays I met were aggressive, confident and a little mean.
So not only are you homophobic. You are xenophobic as well.. Instead of hating every one for being who they are and what they do. You instead focused on all the negatives. gee you stumbled into a room that was not yours. Saw something that didn't want to see. Deciding that was the most horrible thing ever.. Having no sense of humor. you probably missed the fact that those young men were just as horrified and were trying to make light of it. Saving every one a difficult embarrassment.

Not content.. You just went a head and expressed your homophobia. Making it plain that you are narrow minded little fool. Yeah why make your college experience into something positive. Just work on all the negatives. That will make you such a martyr.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#6522 Feb 3, 2014
Thanks for PROVING you have no education or training inn this field.

Abused children can recover if given COMPETENT therapy, something you clearly are not qualified to do.

No, there is NOT a link between abuse and homosexuality. There is not one peer-reviewed study that even claims that. Orientations are innate and immutable. You can't change them. There are decades of research; the only real question is whether it's genetic, due to prenatal hormonal activity, or a combination of both.

Homosexuality wasn't a trait of BPD to begin with, and true bipolar disorder is chemical in nature.

Gays in general do not have a higher suicide rate; the only real difference is in the teen years, when they often experience horrific abuse or neglect from peers, church, parents, and other structures usually considered nurturing. In fact, it's been posited that gay kids feel more isolated because they are more isolated. If a kid is bullied because he's black, he can go home to his black or biracial family. Gay kids don't go home to gay families in most cases. They feel alone and misunderstood and hopeless. And people like you don't help the situation. A kid who's been molested may well be gay to begin with; it's not a part or consequence of being molested.

It's bad enough these kids are bodily raped...do you have to mind-rape them as well?
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>My, you are such an angry little child molester! This is a venue for anonymous interaction which is why I'm not going to give some nutjob like yourself one shred of info about myself. You can just keep stewing about it because I'm sure that you are infuriated there are many professionals who think like I do. They may not say what is politically incorrect on the outside.....but on the inside.....:-)
Children who are attacked by homosexuals are not homosexuals, they are victims. They receive support so they can become whole again.....or at least as near as possible. Oftentimes, traumas like this leave permanent scars but that doesn't mean they can't learn to function normally.
There are many cases that show the connection between abuse/trauma and homosexuality. BPD can be a result of abuse/trauma. I don't know if they have removed homosexality as one of the traits of this disorder yet. The books are still in print.:)
Homosexuals have a high suicide rate which of course has much to do with an unstable personality.
Teens/young adults sociallized and exposed to same sex activities may become influenced especially if given alcohol or other drugs. Some kids are injured so deeply emotionally/physically by this after the fact....they may have long term effects. Young people may not be equipped to handle messing with their sexuality at such a young age which is why I don't think they should be exposed until after they become adults. There are many gays who will gladly steal someone's childhood in order to satiate their perverted desires.
Sounds like you don't like people who want to keep children away from homosexual and heterosexual predators. Tough.

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
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min Blackburn 32,404
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 38 min tongangodz 3,196
News Conservative Columnist Guy Benson Says He's Gay 1 hr david traversa 9
News Gay marriage advocates in Ohio split on vote th... (Feb '14) 2 hr The Voice of Reality 11
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 2 hr Belle Sexton 178
News 8 Shocking Statements Opponents Of Marriage Equ... 2 hr NorCal Native 119
News Watch these LGBT activists win a rare victory a... 2 hr Belle Sexton 6
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Belle Sexton 59,654
News Woman Files Federal Suit Against All Gays 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 45
Are the mods fair and balanced? 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 851
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr Terra Firma 20,750
More from around the web