Another Christian baker targeted for abuse

[martybegan]

You don't stand up for what's right. You support perverted faggots who demand others be forced to do for them.

You don't stand up for what's right. You support perverted bigots who refuse to sell to someone because of their bigotry.

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Another first world problem. Christians are so whiny.

 

[Conservative65]

You don't stand up for what's right. You support perverted bigots who refuse to sell to someone because of their bigotry.

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

The government overreach came as a result of homos not wanting to be told no.

 

[martybegan]

Another first world problem. Christians are so whiny.

and the people suing over a cake aren't being whiny?

 

[Skylar]

You don't stand up for what's right. You support perverted bigots who refuse to sell to someone because of their bigotry.

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

 

[martybegan]

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

The government overreach came as a result of homos not wanting to be told no.

While I defend your right to have your views on homosexuality, I don't agree with them.

Busybody government loving lawsuit happy progressive idiocy crosses many lines.

 

[Conservative65]

You don't stand up for what's right. You support perverted faggots who demand others be forced to do for them.

You don't stand up for what's right. You support perverted bigots who refuse to sell to someone because of their bigotry.

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

If you think homosexuals should expect someone to set aside their beliefs so the homo can be served, you support bigots.

Gays should expect those engaged in public commerce to treat their customers in accordance with the law.

That doesn't fit the faggot agenda. They aren't happy unless they can push their perversion.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to think that. It's part of your agenda to push your beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

I don't stand up for what YOU think is right. I support people standing up for their beliefs. You support forcing those standing up for what's right to do it the way YOU want them to do it. That makes you a bigot.

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

 

[Conservative65]

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

The government overreach came as a result of homos not wanting to be told no.

While I defend your right to have your views on homosexuality, I don't agree with them.

Busybody government loving lawsuit happy progressive idiocy crosses many lines.

You don't have to agree.

Since this thread is about a particular issues, it's the only issue I'll address.

 

[Skylar]

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

 

[Skylar]

No- you support the rights of bigots to their bigotry.

Meanwhile- I think that business's should treat their customers equally and not discriminate against them because the customer is black or Christian or Jewish or gay.

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to think that. It's part of your agenda to push your beliefs.

'My kind' doesn't put religious belief over general laws. Not Muslim Sharia or Christian Sharia.

 

[Conservative65]

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

 

[martybegan]

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used. PA laws when used to fight actual economic or political discrimination is one thing, using it to favor one "oppressed" classes hurt feelings is something else.

 

[Conservative65]

They can be bigots as long as they are doing no actual harm. Hurt feelings are not actual harm.

There you go, forcing your morality on others, and using government to do it.

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to think that. It's part of your agenda to push your beliefs.

'My kind' doesn't put religious belief over general laws. Not Muslim Sharia or Christian Sharia.

Your kind thinks people should set aside their personal beliefs to suit you.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used.

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to think that. It's part of your agenda to push your beliefs.

'My kind' doesn't put religious belief over general laws. Not Muslim Sharia or Christian Sharia.

Your kind thinks people should set aside their personal beliefs to suit you.

I think that its the responsibility of the individual to find a profession that matches their personal beliefs. If a Muslim wants force an employer to slow an entire production line in a factory so they can take a sundown break, I side with the employer. As I would if Steve Young had demanded the superbowl be played on a Saturday since his religion forbid him from working on Sunday.

If an individual feels that making a cake causes eternal damnation, then cake baking probably isn't the best profession for them.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently homos being told no is harmful at least in their minds.

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

 

[Conservative65]

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

 

[Conservative65]

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

I wouldn't expect one of your kind to think that. It's part of your agenda to push your beliefs.

'My kind' doesn't put religious belief over general laws. Not Muslim Sharia or Christian Sharia.

Your kind thinks people should set aside their personal beliefs to suit you.

I think that its the responsibility of the individual to find a profession that matches their personal beliefs. If a Muslim wants force an employer to slow an entire production line in a factory so they can take a sundown break, I side with the employer. As I would if Steve Young had demanded the superbowl be played on a Saturday since his religion forbid him from working on Sunday.

If an individual feels that making a cake causes eternal damnation, then cake baking probably isn't the best profession for them.

You really believe it centers around the actual cake? No wonder you're a Liberal. You're an idiot.