Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Jeremiahcp]

I have no idea what the first part of your post means. For the second part, I was in the military during two wars and have studied military history for most of my life. Units must have very good cohesion and trust with each other.

Now I am not claimed it is right, just that it is inevitable, that many straight people do not trust or feel comfortable with homosexuals in the military environment. The military's effectiveness must never ever be threatened by any social experimentation. Its purpose is not to be fair, not to be politically correct, and not to be distracted by all the things that accompany homosexuals. Even if evolution determines sexuality (actually especially if it did) then straight people naturally do not feel comfortable around homosexuals. The military has also changed its standards concerning those people that are less capable because Washington has forced the military to accept them. Also you have issues with the fact that soldiers must interact with homosexuals in ways civilians do not. For example they must shower together. I would not want to shower with anyone who might find me attractive and the military should not be required to build more showers.

"For the second part, I was in the military during two wars and have studied military history for most of my life. Units must have very good cohesion and trust with each other."

Thank you for your service, but I must point out this is a plead for authority. Generally a plead for authority is not as strong as well formed arguments that demonstrate authority. My position is that, if someone really is an authority on a subject it will show in their debate. As such, I generally disregard authoritative pleads like yours.

"Its purpose is not to be fair, not to be politically correct, and not to be distracted by all the things that accompany homosexuals"

Its purpose is to defend the American way life, and that includes within its own ranks.The military is in service to the people; not itself. I am sorry, but they don't get to set the standards. That is for us, the American citizens as a whole, to dictate, and it is the job of the military to protect that way of life.

I am confident that in time they will be able to meet our standards, but you seem to have very little confidence in the military. If you honestly think it is not disciplined enough to include homosexuals in its ranks, well I would have to say that is a very low opinion of our military.

"For example they must shower together. I would not want to shower with anyone who might find me attractive and the military should not be required to build more showers"

As already pointed out, the chances are you have been in public showers and/or public restrooms with homosexuals already. Homosexual does not mean sexual deviant. To be blunt, that is a really poor reason to justify bigotry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now I am not claimed it is right, just that it is inevitable, that many straight people do not trust or feel comfortable with homosexuals in the military environment. The military's effectiveness must never ever be threatened by any social experimentation.

Since women learned to deal with it, are you suggesting men are just not strong enough and capable of saying no to guy who may start flirting with them?

 

[Prestor John]

Oh stop! Did I write the words "you are ignorant"? No, I didn't. Saying you don't know anything about a subject =/= saying "you are ignorant".

Then you do not know the definition of the word "ignorant."

Claiming that I do not know Hinduism is the same as saying I am ignorant of Hinduism.

But let's try another example.

What if I said you were "not smart" or that you "lacked intelligence" - you wouldn't consider that to be the same as me claiming that you were "dumb" or "stupid"?

Read the rules, especially rule 1.

I did not violate any of the Forum rules.

Rule #1 clearly states that we can, "Critique each other's ideas all you want"

You made false claims about what I had said.

You took fault with what you falsely accused me of, while you did the very same thing that you accused me of doing.

The things you said were dishonest and hypocritical.

Since you don't seem to know the definition of the word "ignorant", should I assume that you don't know the definitions of these words as well?

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, Christians in the USA are calling for the persecution of homosexuals. The Mormons are among the top.

Do you see any difference at all between the words "persecution" and "discrimination"? I do. I think your choice of the word "persecution" is kind of over the top. That's not to say that the LDS Church hasn't (unjustly, IMO) "discriminated" against gays, but I think a distinction should be made between persecution and discrimination. For instance, the Church declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to the LGBT community. It has stressed that, regardless of a person's sexual orientation, everyone has the right to a roof over his head and the right to work without being discriminated against. That sounds like the opposite, not only of discrimination, but of persecution to me.

Your church has done all kinds of nasty things to homosexuals during my lifetime.

Prop 8, right? I agree that the Church should not involve itself in political issues. I was strongly opposed to it being involved in this particular one. What are some of the other "nasty things" you are referring to?

The LDS is big on persecution.

The Church does not allow LGBT people (except for those who choose to remain celibate) to be baptized. I would call that discrimination, and I think it's very unfortunate, particularly as the decision also extends to their straight children. But, once the supreme court's decision was made, the Church made a statement which said, in part, "We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully." The Church disagreed with the ruling (and, as you might have guessed, I supported it), but did not challenge the ruling, nor does it intend to. It reiterated its support for gay rights in housing, employment, medical care and probate.

 

[Prestor John]

Do you see any difference at all between the words "persecution" and "discrimination"? I do. I think your choice of the word "persecution" is kind of over the top. That's not to say that the LDS Church hasn't (unjustly, IMO) "discriminated" against gays, but I think a distinction should be made between persecution and discrimination. For instance, the Church declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to the LGBT community. It stressed that, regardless of one's sexual orientation, he has the right to a roof over his head and the right to work without being discriminated against. That sounds like the opposite, not only of discrimination, but of persecution to me.

Prop 8, right? I agree that the Church should not involve itself in political issues. I was strongly opposed to it being involved in this particular one. What are some of the "all kinds of nasty thing" you are referring to?

The Church does not allow LGBT people (except for those who choose to remain celibate) to be baptized. I would call that discrimination, and I think it's very unfortunate, particularly as the decision also extends to their straight children. But, once the supreme court's decision was made, the Church made a statement which said, in part, "We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully." The Church disagreed with the ruling (and, as you might have guessed, I supported it), but did not challenge the ruling, nor does it intend to. It reiterated its support for gay rights in housing, employment, medical care and probate.

Even though I disagree with you about how the Church should be involved in the legislation process - I love you and how you present your position.

Don't change.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even though I disagree with you about how the Church should be involved in the legislation process

You'd agree if it was your rights they were coming, with the Church insisting the state do away with your rights and deny them for no other reason than their religion says they aren't "morally right."

 

[Jainarayan]

Then you do not know the definition of the word "ignorant."

Claiming that I do not know Hinduism is the same as saying I am ignorant of Hinduism.

But let's try another example.

What if I said you were "not smart" or that you "lacked intelligence" - you wouldn't consider that to be the same as me claiming that you were "dumb" or "stupid"?

I did not violate any of the Forum rules.

Rule #1 clearly states that we can, "Critique each other's ideas all you want"

You made false claims about what I had said.

You took fault with what you falsely accused me of, while you did the very same thing that you accused me of doing.

The things you said were dishonest and hypocritical.

Since you don't seem to know the definition of the word "ignorant", should I assume that you don't know the definitions of these words as well?

You're stretching this like hot mozzarella in lasagna. At some point it won't hold together anymore and it's simply going to break.

 

[Prestor John]

If they are commissioned to, then they have a job to do. If they find it unsettling, they shouldn't have taken the job.

This response surprised me because you believe that the artist in this scenario has the right to not take a job, but a baker placed in a similar situation cannot.

I thought you believed that a baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple regardless of what the baker believes or how the baker feels?

Why the different stance for the artist? Is it because the portrait had to do with Islam?

Why can an artist refuse a job, but when a baker does it, they are forced to pay damages and lose their business?

No one is being told how to practice their religion.

Yes, they are and your very next sentence proves that they are.

They aren't telling them they have to host the wedding ceremony in their church and happily accept same-sex marriage.

This right here is telling someone what standards they should have or what views they should have on sin and homosexuality.

You do not have the right to assign what about a certain sin or lifestyle is “acceptable” to them and their religious belief. Only the individual has that right.

For example, I believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior and I oppose the concept of “same-sex marriage”, however, I do not personally have any problem with: attending a same-sex wedding, participating in their wedding celebrations, purchasing them a wedding gift, making them a wedding cake, personally providing them with any other wedding services, having a homosexual couple as my neighbors, inviting them to my home or church, having my children play with their children, etc.

It is up to me where I draw the line though. Not you.

If a baker feels that making a wedding cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding violates his/her religious convictions, yet you would force them to make that cake anyway or go out of business – you are telling them how to practice their religion.

They are saying you must obey the laws the govern the public social sphere, which includes the many businesses that serve the public.

Laws have been wrong in the past. They can be wrong now. I believe they are wrong and that they deny business owners the right to freedom of religion. I don’t consider a private business owner to be a “public servant” and they should have the freedom to succeed or fail.

No one has claimed that or insisted on it.

It was just an example of not telling someone what to believe but then telling them how they can act on their beliefs.

They can do business with whoever they want.

You claiming that they must do business with everyone kind of negates this point.

But they have no right to refuse people they don't want to do business with on the basis on many various things.

We are not talking about a simple case of, “I don’t like you so I won’t serve you.”

The bakers I have been referring to were willing to do business. They were willing to offer any baked goods for any occasion, even for their wedding. They just did not want to make the wedding cake because they did not want to appear to be supporting a practice they had religious convictions against.

You can try to boil it down to them “hating gays”, but I don’t see any evidence of that.

They wanted to do business, but they had reservations about offering one particular product for a practice they had religious convictions against.

Saying people have a right to discriminate against them is calling for the persecution of them.

I disagree.

Discrimination is not inherently hostile or necessarily based on hatred.

That is still an impediment against having the freedom to say whatever you want.

I understand that not every “call to action” is protected speech.

Expressing your opinion that homosexuality is sinful or refusing to participate in a practice you believe is sinful is not a “call to action.”

You can't make a threat against government officials either. You can't advocate for the overthrowing of the government.

Again, these are “calls to action” that would infringe on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of an individual(s).

Being willing to offer any baked goods for any occasion except the wedding cake for a homosexual wedding does not infringe upon anyone’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Because it is the law, and they have consistently ruled in favor of civil rights being extended.

Laws have been wrong before. There once was a time when the courts consistently ruled against civil rights being extended to just anyone.

I could tell everyone who complains about the Electoral College that it is the system that the Founding Fathers put in place and they need to accept it, but that would still not invalidate their arguments or appease them to any degree.

As should have been apparent, I use "we" very generally. Not you and I specifically "we," but "we" as in a collective society.

I made the distinction here because of what I said to the “we” you used in your last comment.

I just wanted to be consistent.

It's actually only lucrative for a few.

I never said otherwise. To those few it was extremely lucrative.

Wasn’t it only like 1.4% of the American population ever having slaves? I don’t know where I got the number from.

Anyways, very few Americans had slaves.

Everybody else it is a very heavy burden, including the economy.

I agree. It was wrong and not at all comparable to not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding.

Yes, I can, because slave owners did very much indeed say it was their Biblical and God-given right to own slaves.

That does not make it the actual reason though.

People can say whatever they want to get whatever they want. That does not make what they say the actual reason they want something.

People can say that they deserve a pay out because of “emotional damages” they have suffered, but all they really wanted was to make a statement and get free money.

The Bible does permit slavery afterall, it doesn't condemn the practice, and agrees that slaves are property.

Yes, the Lord permitted slavery to take place within ancient Israel. And in many instances it benefited Israel and their enemies, but that is not the same as saying that the Lord wanted the Israelites or anyone else to have slaves.

And no one is being denied that, except for those being told "you don't serve your kind here."

These are not cases of “We don’t serve your kind here.” They would have served them in any way that did not violate their religious beliefs.

Are you honestly claiming that a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding is denying that couple the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Really? Really? Have we diluted what these rights are so much?

No, it wasn't. The baker still has a baker, can still go about their business in every normal way…

No, they were forced to pay damages which forced them out of business.

..and their personal religious beliefs are not the focus but rather the policy of their business, a policy that is in violation of the law if it were against, Chinese, Irish, blacks, veterans or non-veterans, disabilities, religion, sex, and many other things.

Their religious beliefs are the focus.

Do you believe a person should be forced to go to war, even though committing violence or assisting in the issuance of violence goes against their religious beliefs?

That person should be forced to go to war?

With how the Supreme Court has ruled, tends to rule, and how a number of Federal Circuit Courts have ruled, LBGT discrimination is soon to be banned, because that discrimination does infringe on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those being denied services for no other reason than just being themselves.

Entering into a contract is not simply them “being themselves.”

For those who believe that marriage is a divine institution that was intended to be between a man and a woman only, it can be very offensive when homosexuals choose to enter into that contract and then choose to go to that particular believer and demand that he/she participate in what they consider to be an offensive practice.

Again, you can try to make this an, “I don’t like homosexuals” scenario, but I don’t believe the facts support that claim.

These bakers did not refuse to bake the cake because the customers were homosexual, but because they chose to participate in a practice that the baker had religious convictions against.

The right to equal protection under the law is infringed upon those who are discriminated against and denied rights and privileges extended freely to others, because they are obviously not equal under the law.

You believe that you have the right to force someone to participate in a practice that violates their freedom of religion?

It's not about convenience or being inconvenienced, rather, it is about not being allowed to say "we don't serve your kind here."

That was never the issue here.

It was about “same-sex marriage” and not wanting to bake a wedding cake. That’s it.

The baker was willing to offer any other baked goods, just not a wedding cake.

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, that couple is slightly inconvenienced, because they would need to go to another baker.

As should have been apparent, I use "we" very generally. Not you and I specifically "we," but "we" as in a collective society.

The Supreme Court does not necessarily speak for the “collective society.”

Their decisions can be challenged. And will be.

 

[Prestor John]

You'd agree if it was your rights they were coming, with the Church insisting the state do away with your rights and deny them for no other reason than their religion says they aren't "morally right."

Any Church has the right to be involved in the legislative process at local, State and Federal levels.

It seems you only care about the rights of those who agree with you.

 

[Prestor John]

You're stretching this like hot mozzarella in lasagna. At some point it won't hold together anymore and it's simply going to break.

You can't contest anything I have said.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Any Church has the right to be involved in the legislative process at local, State and Federal levels.

It seems you only care about the rights of those who agree with you.

No it doesn't because that's a breach of the First Amendment. Religious institutes do not have any such right because: a) they are not allowed to influence lawmaking and; b) such rights extend only to citizens i.e. legal persons. That's the very definition of 'separation of church & state'.

 

[Jainarayan]

You can't contest anything I have said.

OK, if it makes you happy. I'm easy. Check any men's room wall.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This response surprised me because you believe that the artist in this scenario has the right to not take a job, but a baker placed in a similar situation cannot.

The baker took the job as a baker, runs a bakery business, and generally they serve the general public. Artists, on the other hand, frequently work on a freelance/commissioned basis. Artists also generally are not serving the general public, and rarely do they run businesses dedicated to their art. But, if they do run a business serving the public, then they are obliged to serve the public.

This right here is telling someone what standards they should have or what views they should have on sin and homosexuality.

What standards are being mandated? My statement was specific they do not have to host gay weddings in their church, and they don't have to even welcome gays in the door. Churches are not businesses, and they do not serve the general public.

You do not have the right to assign what about a certain sin or lifestyle is “acceptable” to them and their religious belief. Only the individual has that right.

I'm not. I even said it's your right to believe such. But that does not mean you have the right to guide public policy.

We are not talking about a simple case of, “I don’t like you so I won’t serve you.”

We pretty much are talking about just that.

The bakers I have been referring to were willing to do business. They were willing to offer any baked goods for any occasion, even for their wedding. They just did not want to make the wedding cake because they did not want to appear to be supporting a practice they had religious convictions against.

They aren't supporting anything, other than their business. Their job isn't to make moral judgements about people, it's to bake and sell cakes to the general public.

Discrimination is not inherently hostile or necessarily based on hatred.

True, but even the so-called "positive" discrimination has no place in society.

I understand that not every “call to action” is protected speech.

Do understand, I provided that as an example of when free speech is not free, and to demonstrate there are multiple instances in which it is limited and restricted.

Expressing your opinion that homosexuality is sinful or refusing to participate in a practice you believe is sinful is not a “call to action.”

No one is saying you can't express that.

Laws have been wrong before. There once was a time when the courts consistently ruled against civil rights being extended to just anyone.

True, but much like it was predicted the Supreme Court would inevitably legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states and what arguments and precedence they would base that decision on, we can expect the Supreme Court to not overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, and they are probably not going to reverse any of their positions of LBGT protections, and if anything, make it more clear you cannot discriminate against sexual orientation or gender identity and expectations. They have actually already ruled on these, but some people need a reminder and need it spelled out for them, and in a few instances they just need to take another half-step.

I could tell everyone who complains about the Electoral College that it is the system that the Founding Fathers put in place and they need to accept it, but that would still not invalidate their arguments or appease them to any degree.

That is irrelative, as I gave a position based on precedence, not a centuries old system we only selectively adhere to.

People can say whatever they want to get whatever they want. That does not make what they say the actual reason they want something.

Unless you can provide evidence showing they really weren't seriously using the Bible as justification of their ways, you do not get to decide whenever someone's religious appeals are central and authentic or not.

Yes, the Lord permitted slavery to take place within ancient Israel. And in many instances it benefited Israel and their enemies, but that is not the same as saying that the Lord wanted the Israelites or anyone else to have slaves.

Permitted it, demanded it, and not once condemned it as inhumane and barbaric. No, rather it says to go ahead and beat them as severely as you want, just as long as you don't kill them, because they are your property.

These are not cases of “We don’t serve your kind here.” They would have served them in any way that did not violate their religious beliefs.

Yes, it is that. They don't like homosexuals, thus they did not want to serve them as they would serve anyone else.

Are you honestly claiming that a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding is denying that couple the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Yes. They were denied the ability to be served the same as any other member of the general public.

No, they were forced to pay damages which forced them out of business.

Oh well. As we say around here "if you're going to do the crime, you need to be prepared to do the time." If you brake the law, there are consequences.

Their religious beliefs are the focus.

They are secondary, as the issue revolves around business policy, a policy that is based on their religion. However, it is illegal for a business to discriminate. Businesses are not entitled to the same rights as people, and they have many additional laws that must be followed that people do not have to follow. Opening a business, after all, is not a right.

Do you believe a person should be forced to go to war, even though committing violence or assisting in the issuance of violence goes against their religious beliefs?

It depends on the situation. If you are being invaded and you don't fight to defend yourself, your neighbors, and your community (and, of course, assuming you are physically able to), you probably shouldn't even be a member of that community.

That person should be forced to go to war?

Honestly, it depends as there is no blanket one-size-fits-all approach to this. We in America are privileged enough to have a large enough population that volunteer for it that we don't really need mandatory conscription. Not all nations are that privileged, and they need mandatory conscription for at least cases of national defense.

For those who believe that marriage is a divine institution that was intended to be between a man and a woman only

No one is saying you can't believe that.

it can be very offensive when homosexuals choose to enter into that contract and then choose to go to that particular believer and demand that he/she participate in what they consider to be an offensive practice.

Then take the advice of your Jesus and focus on the moat in your own eye rather than the splinter in the eye of another. Or, as we say today, mind your own business. Realize we are a pluralistic society with freedom of and from religion, and you have no right to dictate the lives of others based on your own sense of morality. If something offends you, for the sake of an open and free society, chances are pretty good you're just going to have to learn to tolerate it.

It was about “same-sex marriage” and not wanting to bake a wedding cake. That’s it.

In other words, not wanting to serve "their kind."

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, that couple is slightly inconvenienced, because they would need to go to another baker.

Their right to equal application of the law has been violated because the baker wants to believe special privileges have been granted, even though they haven't.

Their decisions can be challenged. And will be.

And the chances they will reverse same-sex marriage is less than abysmal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Any Church has the right to be involved in the legislative process at local, State and Federal levels.

It seems you only care about the rights of those who agree with you.

No, they don't. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion." The church can technically be involved, but they have no right to expect their dogma be made into state legislation.

 

[columbus]

Any Church has the right to be involved in the legislative process at local, State and Federal levels.

I agree.
But they must first give up the special tax status they enjoy. Start paying property taxes and stop giving deductions to donors and I will be all about your freedom of speech. Until then I won't be.
You can't have it both ways.
Pick one. Either you're a church or you're a Political Action Committee. You can't be both.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

Any Church has the right to be involved in the legislative process at local, State and Federal levels.

Then they should be taxed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no idea what the first part of your post means. For the second part, I was in the military during two wars and have studied military history for most of my life. Units must have very good cohesion and trust with each other.

Now I am not claimed it is right, just that it is inevitable, that many straight people do not trust or feel comfortable with homosexuals in the military environment. The military's effectiveness must never ever be threatened by any social experimentation. Its purpose is not to be fair, not to be politically correct, and not to be distracted by all the things that accompany homosexuals. Even if evolution determines sexuality (actually especially if it did) then straight people naturally do not feel comfortable around homosexuals. The military has also changed its standards concerning those people that are less capable because Washington has forced the military to accept them. Also you have issues with the fact that soldiers must interact with homosexuals in ways civilians do not. For example they must shower together. I would not want to shower with anyone who might find me attractive and the military should not be required to build more showers.

This is one of your arguments that I think is nonsense.

It's not a "social experiment" to allow gay people to join the military. It's been done for thousands of years (whether it was known that there were gay people there or not, they were there) and is currently not a problem in any of the countries around the world that allow it.

I repeat, there is no experiment. Gay people are just human beings like anyone else serving in the military.

Who cares if others are "comfortable" or not. We're not arguing with "feelings" and "emotions," right? Wasn't that one of your rules?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I love the impossible “what if” scenarios. The reason I claim that this is an “impossible” scenario is because the market would work itself out.

In my small town and the towns surrounding it, there are a grand total of two places to buy a wedding cake. Are you telling me that it's impossible that someone who lives in a town like this will be unable to buy a wedding cake? How would that work, exactly?

If there is a demand with no supply, someone will step in to fill the need. That is how economics works.

So... say a same-sex couple in a town like mine went to the two cake shops that were available to them and both refused them. Are you seriously claiming that another gay-friendly cake shop will magically open?

Have you ever heard of barriers to entry?

Either that or after you and I “boycott/protest/bad review on yelp” whichever business we believe is discriminatory, the business will either cave in to our demands, close their doors or stick to their guns – suffering the consequence of potential loss of business.

In a lot of places, refusing a same-sex couple would increase business.

Another impossible scenario.

The almighty dollar rules in a free market. Businesses that refuse to supply a demand will fall or at least not climb. Someone will come in to pick up the slack and maybe push the other out of the market.

Let the market sort itself out.

So... in places where market forces haven't caused LGBT-friendly cake shops to exist yet, you think that leaving things to market forces will result in LGBT-friendly cake shops?

It takes a special kind of thinking to believe that the factors that resulted in the status quo will end up resulting in the opposite of the status quo.

Also, I just wanted to say that trying to compare the “plight” of same-sex couples being unable to buy a wedding cake from a particular baker to the rape, murder and violence forced upon the early Latter-Day Saints is shallow and disgusting.

I was thinking more about the everyday discrimination that Mormons have faced in the past. That doesn't give you any empathy for other groups facing similar treatment?

Another impossible scenario, unless, of course, the Government were to be involved and make the market less than free.

Denying to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding is not forcing anything upon that same-sex couple.

However, compelling a business owner by use of force or financial ruin to violate their religious beliefs is.

Wait a minute: didn't you just say that market forces would send these discriminatory businesses to financial ruin anyway? Your arguments seem to be rather inconsistent.

Let me ask you a couple “what ifs”:

What if I go to a professional woodcarver who claims to carve anything except any religious symbols, icons or persons?

Should I be able to force him/her to carve me a crucifix? Even though there are other woodcarvers nearby that would carve a crucifix for me no problem?

Would that initial woodcarver be forcing his/her personal belief upon me for not wanting to carve me a crucifix?

What if I went to an artist and wanted to hire him/her to paint a portrait of the prophet Mohammed raping a little girl?

Does the artist have to paint that portrait? Does he/she need to participate in something that he/she feels might be unsettling, offensive or in bad taste?

You don't get it.

There's a difference between a business in public serving the entire public and forcing a business owner to sell products he doesn't want to make.

A wedding cake shop owner doesn't have to stock "groom/groom" cake toppers. He could even insist that every cake they sell has a "bride/groom" topper on it. But given that they've decided to sell this product to the public, they should sell it to the whole public.

If a woodcarver doesn't want to carve religious symbols, fair enough... but he can't refuse his services to religious people on the basis of their religion. The business owner decides what products to sell and then sells them without discrimination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The military's effectiveness must never ever be threatened by any social experimentation.

Like how, during the Iraq War, the ban on gay service members exacerbated a dangerous shortage of Arabic translators? Is that the sort of threat to military effectiveness you're against?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Translate

 

[columbus]

The military's effectiveness must never ever be threatened by any social experimentation. Its purpose is not to be fair, not to be politically correct, and not to be distracted by all the things that accompany homosexuals.

For example they must shower together. I would not want to shower with anyone who might find me attractive and the military should not be required to build more showers.

I used to feel the same way. The military has a job to do and leading the way to a politically correct future isn't part of it. I saw no reason to add sexual tension to the mix. Sexual tension causes people to do stupid things.
But there were two things. One, you can't keep gay people out of the military, only honest ones. The closet cases are usually the dangerous ones because they are dishonest. You never know what they might do or why.
Two, I asked a career army guy what he thought. I don't know all that many people like Andrew well enough to get a straight answer. He's a mid30's E8. He has been in leadership positions for 10 years. 2 tours in Iraq, 1 in Afghanistan, most recently in Gitmo. He was happy to see the end of DADT. He and all the other straight boys were tired of having to protect their gay buddies from the army. They didn't care about gays, either you're reliable or you're not. What flips your trigger is not important to whether you do your job well. And that is what they all cared about.
Tom