You mean, today, when you came back?

Like I care. Why don't you show me the rule on the site where a poster decides what topics may be discussed in replies and has the right to forbid anything else. I “brought up” morality to explain the position of the Church, because there are other people than you in the world, and your disinterest in a topic in no way renders it ineligible for discussion. And why don't you tell me where the word homophobia occurs in the the US Code or Constitution? You WERE talking about morality.

I said they OUGHT to be allowed to do so. I directly disagreed with your issue. I fully understood the point you were making and could not disagree more. People are allowed to do that.

I disagree. Saying they are different does not make it so. You have admitted your ignorance and deficiencies in communication sufficient times in this thread that I wonder that you still stand on your own feelings as an authority.

That might be relevant if that was the point I was making. Why is the NFL allowed to have a conduct policy applied to employees on issues "not related to their work performance" but the Catholic Church is not?

But it should be, and the law in question has no constitutional basis for its authority. You freely confess to not understanding the law in question, do you really want to try asserting the constitutionality of a law you don't even understand? It is also a law that allows religious institutions more leeway on certain things. You promptly went ahead and questioned whether not they SHOULD have that leeway. So don't complaining that I am the one dragging the discussion from a stictly legalistic analysis of the meaning and execution of a particular anti-discrimination law, that you can't even quote, let alone understand. The next time you leave the site for a few days, re-read what you yourself wrote, so you don't look so foolish referencing posts that only exist in your imagination.

And here you are believing that mentioning someone's name is "listing...as a source". I did not, in fact, cite Mr. Schenider for anything aside as an EXAMPLE of discriminatory behavior that IS widely recognized as acceptable, and should NOT be punished by law. It should be inherently obvious to the most casual reader that I was also using him as the most ridiculous example of discrimination possible, in order to make a point that even such as that should be permitted in a free society.

Who the hell taught you to think? Do you even realize how many moralizations you placed in those sentences? Who says we "need" that law? Why do we need it? Prove this. Are your mental faculties really so limited that you honestly cannot conceive of a mindset different from your own narrow moral positioning? Forbidding discrimination is absolutely nothing more than a morality-based action, and is by its very nature a moral judgment. Your assertion that the number of people supporting a position makes it "just" is a moral judgment, if an assinine one. Is this the same position you take vis a vis the democratic opposition to homosexual marriage in California?

Insufficient support for a highly dubious proposition.

What arrogant and elitist nonsense! You are essentially saying “People cannot be trusted until they believe the way I think appropriate, and they must be restrained, surveilled and kept from freedom, until they are sufficiently re-educated to choose what I think best on their own!”
On what grounds do you claim the right to say when a person is grown enough to be permitted freedom? Who are you to say that is right, and how are you any different from a religious person who says people can't be trusted with freedom until they have proven their faith and devotion and their ability to refrain from temptation?

Who decides? What gives them the right to restrict freedom just because it's unpopular?

How do they hurt them? Hurting someone is inflicting suffering on them, NOT refusing to give them everything they ask for. The laws against discrimination, however, are basically stepping to force people to do the other. It is, or should be, entirely up to an employer to determine what constitutes job performance. When educating children at a Catholic school, for instance, the purpose of the job is educate children in Catholic values. People who embrace a lifestyle in opposition to those values are not doing their job. Just as an employee of the NAACP who is a member of the KKK in his free time is similarly failing to advance colored people. The inability to get along with a more highly-valued employee, for no fault of one's own, can and should be grounds for termination, as the employer is not getting what he wants from his employees in such a case, no matter how illegitimate or unjust the reasons why the fired person is not tolerated by his coworkers.

Even setting aside all those points, essential liberty includes the right to property, which assumes the right to do as one pleases with his or her property, including choose whom you will give your property to in exchange for goods or services. Those who surrender this essential liberty in exchange for temporary security against the ugliness of discrimination, neither deserve, nor will they get, either the liberty OR security.

What kind of reasoning is that? Not only that, you are being discriminatory, making a sweeping & unsupported generalization about a widespread group. Who are you to tell Catholics what sins they have to value, and what priority those sins should be? As I explained, the sin in question is one of the most serious against Catholic values. Or is your point about the quantity of the sins? A man who lies and takes the name of the Lord in vain commits two sins, so by your reckoning, he should be fired before the man with only a single murder to his name?

I wasn't trying to hide it.

My point exactly. Why do you bring up a bunch of blather about what is not contained in one tiny source when you freely admit a wide range of sources for Catholic morality? I was directly responding to your comment about "all the writings we have on Jesus" when I cited "one very short book." I would have thought the physical proximity of those two sentences would have alerted you to their relationship, even if your brain is incapable of maintaining coherent lines of though. I know exactly where the anti-homosexual doctrine comes from, but your were the one disingenuously expressing shock at the lack of such in a rather limited compilation of a single teacher. You claim to find it shocking that the Church takes a position despite a single source having nothing to say about it one way or another, and yet, when called out on your ignorance, confess your true understanding of the source of doctrine you claim to be shocked at its lack of provenance.

Who said I was penitent, and what does that have to do with reading the Bible? And when did I ever claim He said otherwise, or that it matters one way or another to me? So Jesus says nothing about homsexuality. Your point being...? Or did you forget once again that you claimed to understand that Catholics answer to Church doctrine?