TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.
What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.
All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.
Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.
You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.
Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?
The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?
A red herring all of it.
There is no such time where rights are a "zero sum game." To apply an economic theory to the attainment of rights is a misnomer. And pretty stupid.
We will grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, when they also grant that same respect to those who don't approve of their lifestyle. See what I mean? What good is it to use the constitution to deny one person their rights to give someone else theirs?
So, what is more in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution? The freedom to serve who you want, when you want and according to your beliefs? Or the tyranny of being forced to serve everyone, against your beliefs?
Since when should man have to sacrifice his own held beliefs for a collective minority whose lifestyles fly in the face of his faith? You haven't the slightest clue, carbine. No amount of bloviating from you will change that.
Last edited: