Conservatives, what pisses you off the most about homosexuals

[Nosmo King]

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

 

[Foxfyre]

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

 

[Nosmo King]

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

 

[gtopa1]

Grooming mostly. Perverts do that sort of thing.

Greg

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

You'll not get an honest answer from the right.

 

[Rocko]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

In general, Democrats are people I disagree with, however there’s a large faction, not the majority, that hate America. Those are people I have a healthy contempt for.

 

[Rambunctious]

What pisses me off about gays?....They are single issue voters....blind to anything but their sexuality and the ramifications there in....

 

[miketx]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

Queers have nothing to do with politics. However morally bankrupt politicians appease queers to get their votes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

Interesting...

Have you ever considered that people use their sexual orientation as an instrument of hatred? What if they force themselves on a Muslim? Would you be here saying the same thing?

I have a real problem with people losing rights in favor of others gaining them. It's true, gays and people like me don't have as much rights as a heterosexual male or female would (and I hope one day both sides can get what they want from the law) but for me it seems that we/they are being unreasonable in their demands for equal rights. There is no equality in discrimination, but there is also no equality in demanding that someone violate the basic tenets of their beliefs to suit your sexual preferences.

Something needs to change.

 

[Nosmo King]

What pisses me off about gays?....They are single issue voters....blind to anything but their sexuality and the ramifications there in....

Are Gays the only single issue voters as you say? Are there voters who are only concerned about guns? Or abortion?

 

[Rambunctious]

What pisses me off about gays?....They are single issue voters....blind to anything but their sexuality and the ramifications there in....

Are Gays the only single issue voters as you say? Are there voters who are only concerned about guns? Or abortion?

Single issue voters are dangerous....whatever their single issue happens to be....but you will find that the democrat party houses many of them....

 

[Foxfyre]

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

So do I. But what I am describing is not hate and to describe it as hate I see as pretty hateful. Every human should have the right to discriminate not against persons or what they believe or profess or support, but against those things we believe to be unjust, wrong, improper, not the way things should be.

The bakers singled out for political destruction were targeted not because they discriminated against gays. They didn't. Those same gay people had purchased products in those businesses numerous times and had been served cheerfully and without prejudice. To not want to participate in any way in an EVENT or cause or statement is not discriminating against a person.

I might accompany you to the theater, to a church service, to a pageant, to pretty much any event whether or not I enjoyed it or appreciated the message or production or whatever. But I would not accompany you to a dog fight or a bull fight or a pro choice rally. Or provide support for such in any way. That is not discriminating against YOU. It is discriminating against an event or statement or cause of which I cannot condone or support.

 

[Lysistrata]

What you are demanding is "special rights." You are not entitled to that.

Uh no.

What I am demanding is that both sides get the same treatment under public accommodation laws. That or craft legislation giving accommodations to business owners who are people of faith. Or fashion the laws in such a way that it appeases both sides without taking rights from one or the other.

I never said I was entitled to anything.

What "sides" are these? One is a sexual orientation and one is some religious group. Apples and oranges. I'm a heterosexual. Does this put me on a "side" of some sort? This is just plain silly.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

Interesting...

Have you ever considered that people use their sexual orientation as an instrument of hatred? What if they force themselves on a Muslim? Would you be here saying the same thing?

I have a real problem with people losing rights in favor of others gaining them. It's true, gays and people like me don't have as much rights as a heterosexual male or female would (and I hope one day both sides can get what they want from the law) but for me it seems that we/they are being unreasonable in their demands for equal rights. There is no equality in discrimination, but there is also no equality in demanding that someone violate the basic tenets of their beliefs to suit your sexual preferences.

Something needs to change.

Freedoms m is not a zero sum game. That seems to be the hangup many Conservatives have. They seem to think that extending freedom to others means losing freedom for themselves.

Perhaps in some perverse way they are right. By expanding freedom for homosexuals, Conservatives lose the freedom to demean and discriminate.

It's really quite simple. Treat each and every customer the same. What's so hard about that?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.

Perhaps the baker could warn prospective customers before they even enter their shop. They could post a sign in their window stating:"Due to our abide nag faith in Jesus Christ who taught 'He without saying n shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to skeevy little faggots. God Bless You!'

Same sex wedding cakes are no more pornographic than heterosexual wedding cakes.

And wedding vendors are not wedding guests. Neither are they wedding participants. A baker would deliver and ass male a wedding no cake, but not even see the happy couple. They are working at the reception hall while the ceremony is taking place.

Wedding vendors are nevertheless participating in the event, are present at the event, and/or providing a product/service specifically for the event which is a form of participation.

And no, you should not have to come up with and post a list of every single conceivable concept, cause, activity, issue, etc. that he/she might have a moral problem with and would prefer not to or won't participate in no matter who the customer is. Provide the products and services you do want to offer to all without prejudice yes. But to not provide a product or service depicting something you do not want to provide should be anybody's right.

Many times I have called up a service or seller to ask if they did or offered whatever, and they simply told me no they don't. Just because they offer similar products or services to others does not mean I have any right for them to accommodate me.

If we truly believe in liberty and the right to one's own conscience, that has to apply to everything and not just those things with which we agree.

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

Interesting...

Have you ever considered that people use their sexual orientation as an instrument of hatred? What if they force themselves on a Muslim? Would you be here saying the same thing?

I have a real problem with people losing rights in favor of others gaining them. It's true, gays and people like me don't have as much rights as a heterosexual male or female would (and I hope one day both sides can get what they want from the law) but for me it seems that we/they are being unreasonable in their demands for equal rights. There is no equality in discrimination, but there is also no equality in demanding that someone violate the basic tenets of their beliefs to suit your sexual preferences.

Something needs to change.

Freedoms m is not a zero sum game. That seems to be the hangup many Conservatives have. They seem to think that extending freedom to others means losing freedom for themselves.

Perhaps in some perverse way they are right. By expanding freedom for homosexuals, Conservatives lose the freedom to demean and discriminate.

It's really quite simple. Treat each and every customer the same. What's so hard about that?

Baloney. It isn't conservatives confronting and attempting to embarrass the Vice President of the United States at a theater event that he attended to enjoy the production rather than make a political statement

It isn't conservatives staging protests that too often turn violent to prevent anybody from speaking on campus or other places when that speaker offers ideas or concepts different from what the protesters want to allow. (Consider how devastating that is to education when students are allowed to hear only one point of view.)

With extremely rare exceptions, it isn't conservatives who organize protests to attack advertisers, suppliers, contractors, customers, audiences etc. of public figures in an effort to silence them. When the AFC attempted such an attack on J.C. Penney to force them to fire Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson because she was gay, it was mostly conservatives who took them to task and demanded they back off.

It isn't conservatives who are driving people out of restaurants, shouting them down, accosting them on the street, or congressional and other progressive leaders urging people to get in the faces of people they disagree with.

That is my No. 1 beef with the whole leftist movement these days including Democrats who engage in this kind of hateful politics of personal destruction. I might disagree even to the point of publicly criticizing their stated convictions, but I would never deny them the right to speak their beliefs or opinions or attempt to personally destroy them because they don't agree with me.

The left would have their point of view, their policies, their convictions, their agenda be the ONLY acceptable one and everybody else must be sidelined, silenced, and/or destroyed. THAT is what is wrong. THAT is what is evil. THAT is what we ALL should be standing up and fighting against. And blessing on my gay friends who understand that and speak out against it even when they disagree with those who are attacked.

 

[impuretrash]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

I'm old enough to remember when their cry was “Don't force your morality on us!”

All that they wanted—or so they claimed—was to be allowed to practice their sick perversions in peace and privacy.

Foolishly, as a society, we granted them that. We gave them that inch, and they took a mile. Now, they force their immorality on all of us, on society as a whole, and even on children. And those of us who object to having this sickness forced on us are told that we're the once with whom something is very wrong.

They are forcing you to be gay?? You should be more careful about who you let walk up behind you.

The LGBT lobby wants to impose on society in general a "tolerant" attitude towards their lifestyle. When a lefty says tolerance, what they mean is submission.

Do you have reasons you are intolerant? What form does your intolerance take? Would you repress homosexuals for a reason, and if so, what is that reason.

Have you found it better to be intolerant of other groups? Should intolerance be considered virtuous?

Society should be intolerant of indecent behavior, yes.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I get more pissed at today's conservative than gay people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For the record, I'm not Gay.

Interesting.

So how in the hell would you know what an ordinary gay or bisexual person in America needs from their society?

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has held that public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Commerce Clause, in no manner violating religious liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Supreme Court has held that public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional

Stil waiting on someone to show us where we can find judicial review in Article III.

 

[impuretrash]

I get more pissed at today's conservative than gay people.

Maybe you ought to examine your priorities.