Really? Jimmy Carter said that?!

Seriously, please quote where in the bible Jesus said any such thing. I think you're misquoting the holiness code for Jews from Leviticus and attributing them to Jesus. Those same rules disallow cotton poly blends and shellfish, but you probably never considered boycotting Red Lobster or the Gap, and allow slaves from neighboring countries but you probably don't have a Canadian house slave. Learn about the difference between Christian and Jewish laws don't just watch fake news. ;-)

Really, Bob, you want to say banging kids is liberal after Republicans supported Roy Moore?! Lol. *facepalm
Looting and other crime is not a liberal idea, that's nonsense. Bat shit crazy, hyper partisan nonsense. Some liberals want it to be so easy to cross borders legally that illegal immigrants would cease to exist, I've never heard a sane one support illegal immigration, only illegal immigrants.
Crime could more reasonably be said to be a religious thing, atheists are vastly underrepresented in prison populations. You might say atheists are statistically far less likely to be missing out on life.

No actual science has ever pointed to a creator God....or any god. Anyone telling you different is lying to you about what science is. The closest science ever comes to saying "...so there must be a God" is when it says "we don't know" to a question, often followed by unraveling the mystery and never by finding God hiding behind a corner.

Christians have a much longer and more storied history of ruthless torture and murder in the name of faith than Muslims. Their motto is also convert or die. Learn about them before attempting to make comparisons, maybe?

Obedience to the law like the recently pardoned terrorist group, the Bundys, practiced? Obedience to the law like the bakers allowed by law to display their intolerance against whomever they deem unclean? Obedience to the law like Trump, who's been found guilty of multiple frauds....admitted them in fact? Obedience to the law only when it's convenient or self serving, intolerance whenever it can be gotten away with is what the right practices today.
Maybe you're still a kid who has yet to take critical thinking classes? ;-)

Who believes this shit? Trump supporters, and that is near 35% of the voting population. They may not buy into it happening in 72 hours, but they do think this is a religious war, and that Christianity is under attack, and that Trump is appointed by God to lead this country back to being a Christian nation and all us evil Liberals are fighting the will of God. This is the thing most people on the left don't understand. They don't realize how deeply personal and holy this thing is for the right. Everyone just keeps seeing all the trip ups that Trump does, and thinks, "Blue Wave!" but those trip ups energize his base, and help guarantee they'll be out in fore come November. They are being manipulated by Fox, talk radio and their churches to believe all this stuff. Remember, his supporters supported a child molester in Louisiana over a Democrat, because they think Democrats are that truly evil. Just watch a bit of TBN, watch Jim Baker, watch Fox News... just begin to imagine that this sort of stuff is what you absorb all day every day, this is what you are being fed in church, this is what your social media circles are feeding you. You'll begin to see, this isn't that far out there, this is what they think is happening. They think we are in the end times, and Trump is our last hope against the Anti-Christ, even though he and the GOP are EVERYTHING the Bible warned us the Anti-Christ would be like... it's insane. I'm surrounded at home, at work... all over by these types.

"In the summer of 1935, C.J. "Johnny" Baker and H. Muir staked the original 21 "Giant" claims for Bear Exploration Company. The claims were on Great Slave Lake's Back Bay and along what is now the historic Ingraham Trail.

By 1937, Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd. acquired Burwash's assets. From these, the subsidiary Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd was created. The company fell on hard times and by 1940, operations eventually came to a standstill. Frobisher Explorations took over the site in 1943. However, the advent of World War II halted the operation once again. Gold was not a priority in times of war, and there was a shortage of men to work the site.

Soon after the war ended, Giant Mine officially opened, and production moved into full swing. The first gold brick was poured on June 3, 1948.

From May to December 1948, the mine produced 8,152 ounces of gold from 49,985 tonnes of ore. With the nearby Con Mine also operating, Yellowknife was experiencing the rapid growth associated with a booming mining industry.

Those original claims would lead to the production of seven million ounces of gold and one of the longest continuous gold mining operations in Canadian mining history; however, they also led to a legacy of contamination."

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100027388/1100100027390

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".

"As for gender being something different than sex, if you define it that way"
No, you said that. I'm saying all the physical attributes of gender are changeable besides the brain, and many humans with male gonads have female brains, and vice versa. Today, gonads can be surgically changed, so where is gender? I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed.
Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?
Edit: I guess I do think gender is different from "sex", if sex is determined solely by your gonads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
....as to who cares about gender....the bigoted bakers do. ;-)

We're talking perceived race, gender, sexuality, ethnic group, as identified by the discriminating individuals. They don't DNA scan or brain scan customers before serving (or denying) them, they react based on perception.

Skin color, that's totally changeable. Never heard of spray tans or bleach? Try watching Eddie Murphy's 'White like me'.

Odd you might argue against perception being the measure, since you seemed to argue that gays could be perceived as acceptably heterosexual by not acting on their uncontrollable urges and desires, bypassing the bigoted discrimination, essentially by lying.

Again it's about perceived ethnicity, not actual genetic heritage. Like you say, your actual heritage is unidentifiable by strangers, so less important to this discussion of public business discrimination.
If I want my wedding cake for me and Chris, and I wear my pink paisley silk shirt, leather chaps, choker, and heavy makeup to buy it that doesn't make me gay but the bigot baker would still deny me because he would assume I was.

Honestly, I really don't care what the beliefs of any church are.

If a church wants to take the stance that gays are evil and people with green eyes are demons... well, they're idiots, but as long as they don't do anything illegal, they're entitled to their stupid beliefs.

But religious beliefs shouldn't grant you any special privileges under the law. Basically, I believe you should be free to have whatever religion you want, as long as it's within the confines of the law that applies to everyone. No special exemptions.

So, no, a baker doesn't get to decide whether they can refuse service to a gay couple because of their religious beliefs. They can potentially refuse service if the LAW says they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but religion shouldn't enter into it.

Why should a religious bigot get some special treatment that a regular bigot doesn't?

Now, after all that, the question of forcing businesses to provide service under the law is a tricky one as you and @newtboy have discussed. But generally, there are specific "protected classes" (not sure about the exact term), that you are not allowed discriminate on (i.e. gender, ethnicity, disability, religion, etc). I would be in favour of adding sexual orientation to that list.

So yes, you can refuse a nazi or a cop or a pedophile, but you can't refuse a native american lesbian in a wheelchair.

So in keeping with that, if guys working at the police department that shot Stephon Clark go to a black baker and ask for a cake saying "Hey Man, nice shot!", it should be illegal for the baker to refuse?

Thanks to asshats abusing their religious privileges, that's where we are today. Many places do require businesses offering a service to not discriminate based on personal preference.

If that Muslim baker makes Buddha cakes and Jesus cakes on request, yes....so he should limit his creativity across the board or not at all....or work in his mosque bakery.

If they make made to order pro choice cakes, yes, they should make made to order anti choice cakes.

If they make on request cakes for other notable figures, no....but I would expect Hitler to look pretty horrible.

Easy solution here, stop doing made to order cakes. Offer only what you're comfortable making, not requests, not personalized...have a catalog. Once you offer to make what the customer requests, you give up your right to be offended by it, for cash.

Edit: Keep in mind, this is often about being offended not by what they're asked to make, but who the customer is. Not rainbow wedding cakes with leather clad grooms and cocks everywhere, but fancy white cakes with flowers for a gay wedding.
Side note, Jews can't refuse service in their public establishments to any German, can they, and they have a much better reason to do so.

Do you mean no, you believe by force of law if your business is making cakes, you must print any and all messages(barring illegal hate speech) requested by customers?

A Muslim baker should be required by law to produce a cake depicting the prophet?

Pro-Choice bakers should be required by law to produce cakes with graphic imagery of aborted fetuses?

Jewish bakers shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday?

I get that right to refuse to do certain kinds of business can be touchy, but IMO it's even more dangerous to start demanding business owners lose the freedom to decline business that although legal goes against their own values.

Alright, let me rephrase the question.

Would a group/church that takes the stance of homosexuality isn't 'Kosher' and treated it as such be considered sufficiently tolerant to you?

I know the real example had other issues, but should a baker with that belief be allowed to refuse to make a cake with a non 'Kosher' message on it?

Because of the shirt/meme shown around the 0:23 mark, where people ask "God, why do you allow violence in our schools" to which the reply is "I'm not allowed in schools". Remember that the Christian Right STRONGLY loves guns and are the biggest advocates of gun rights.

Every mass shooting, the Christian Right comes out and screams that it is a lack of God in schools and in our society that is causing the problem, not guns. It is never guns. It is the lack of God, and then violent movies and games, and mental health (which if true, then one would have to wonder why the GOP passed a law, which while it hasn't taken effect yet, makes it easier for mentally ill people to get a gun, and why every version of the repeal and replace Obamacare include massive cuts to mental health programs). Of course, other countries, as noted, doesn't include forced prayer in school, which the Christian Right wants to see returned, and they don't have the school shooting problems.

Basically, it is the Christian Right's fault. They have made fighting against gun control one of their major platforms. And as the Christian Right makes up the vast majority of Christians in the US (or at least the loudest, and near 100% guaranteed to get out and vote... which is why there won't be a Blue Wave 2018), they control the message. So the "God isn't allowed in schools" argument comes up every single school shooting as one of the most oft-repeated reasons for them. Just watch Fox News or any of the primary Christian programming like Jim Baker and 700 Club, and it is the lack of God in schools, the fact that there's a war against Christianity why we have these shootings.

The US is a country where a full 40% of the population believe the universe is under 10,000 years old. Where saying "happy holidays" is a war on Christianity, and that Christianity is the most attacked faith in the world, which proves that it is the one true faith. And this isn't hyperbole on my part, this is what they teach in the Christian Right churches, movies, shows, televangelists and the like (I used to be among their numbers). They honestly see attempts at controlling guns as an attack on their faith. They honestly ignore Jesus saying that it wasn't an eye for an eye and that he said those who live by the sword will die by it, and think that the right to own and defend oneself as a divine right from God himself. So they bring the lack of God as the reason for all these shootings in the US.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

True Whovians don't care who portrays the Doctor as long as copious ass is kicked and names are at least jotted down for future reference if not entirely taken.

The Ones crying about Whitaker have cried about every single other change since Baker.

True story.

From Jim Baker. Nuff Said

Two things are wrong with this.
1) Trump is a not a Christian.
2) Selling bottled water at 25$

after watching michelle gomez knock it out of the park playing missy (formerly known as the "master"),and knowing the lore of the timelords that they do,in fact,change gender.i do not really see what all the fuss is about.

i love capaldi and i think his doctor could have been better with stronger material,because when the stories were good,capaldi really shined.

and i am exactly where @mram is at.i too,thought matt smith would flub it and was pleasantly proved wrong.(though i still am a tennant and baker fan).

let's hope the new female doctor has some good material to work with,and see how she runs......

I grew up on Tom Baker. I have loved and hated some Doctors as they came and went.

What I've learned: give anyone a chance. They might surprise you, and often do. But if they don't, let it go - it's not the end of the show. Matt Smith I thought would be awful (Too young! No skills!) and I was completely and utterly wrong, and happy to be wrong. Life gives you easy lessons sometimes.