Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[Mac1958]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

Holy crap, I didn't expect THAT response.



By the way, the second part of my little plan: Once this is done (and don't hold your breath, of course) we get to the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds with reason, civility and patience, rather than anger, intimidation and punishment. Get some momentum going, maybe make most of these laws irrelevant.

.

I'd add to your plan that the businesses that didn't want to serve gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. would have to advertise that fact. Businesses that don't come into my home don't usually know I'm gay so I don't want to waste my money on them when they don't want it.

People have been working on these issues with reason, civility and patience...how do you think we got to the point where gays aren't used as the evil that must be protected against? How do you think we got to the point where bigots try to pass laws to discriminate against gays and the backlash is instantaneous?

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

.

.

 

[JoeB131]

And quit looking for cases to sue over that involve Crosses, Bibles, prayers
just because these are more visible.

quit trying to put your bibles and crosses and prayers in public venue and impose them on people who didn't ask for them.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

And we saw the same thing with the racists in the 1960's. But by the 1980's, the few people who went around dressed like Klansmen or Nazis just ended up looking silly.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

No, not really. What's going to change their mind is when we get to a point where saying "faggot" or "dyke" out loud gets you the stink-eye, and when people laugh at you when you blurt out a bible verse to try to rationalize your bigotry.

In the mean time, we have public accommodation laws, and you homophobes have to follow them just like the racists do.

 

[Freewill]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

Your thesis is just a rehash of discrimination. What it appears you want is the government to legalize discrimination. In other words you want to allow people to have a restaurant that only caters to white people. To allow business to have separate drinking fountains, after all it is a private business.

That is different then people having the right NOT to participate in ceremonies that go against their beliefs. It is not for the government to decide the line in refusing service. In other words a gay man comes into a bakery and wants to purchase a cake, there is no reason for the baker to refuse public accommodation. The same gay man then says, write together forever Ed and Mike, or something to that effect. The baker certainly should have the right now to refuse that service. If not then any level of depravity would be forced upon the baker. I am not saying that being gay is any form of depravity BUT where does the government get to draw the line? Who in the government gets to make these decisions?

 

[Seawytch]

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

Holy crap, I didn't expect THAT response.



By the way, the second part of my little plan: Once this is done (and don't hold your breath, of course) we get to the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds with reason, civility and patience, rather than anger, intimidation and punishment. Get some momentum going, maybe make most of these laws irrelevant.

.

I'd add to your plan that the businesses that didn't want to serve gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. would have to advertise that fact. Businesses that don't come into my home don't usually know I'm gay so I don't want to waste my money on them when they don't want it.

People have been working on these issues with reason, civility and patience...how do you think we got to the point where gays aren't used as the evil that must be protected against? How do you think we got to the point where bigots try to pass laws to discriminate against gays and the backlash is instantaneous?

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

These "strange attempts" are business as usual for bigots. They tried the same things in the 60 with desegregation and misengenation.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

Didn't they? Since desegregation and the striking down of interracial marriage laws, people did change their minds didn't they? When they could no longer separate themselves from "those people" they actually got to know "those people" and found out they were, in fact, 100% human.

 

[FA_Q2]

In Indiana, a gay person can still be fired from a job or denied a job, simply for being gay.

Please forgive me for doubting you but since we all know what lying scum dimocraps are, can you provide a link to the last person to be fired for being gay in Indiana (or anywhere else).

There are still laws on the books that require a man to walk in front of an automobile at night carrying a gas lamp, too.

I'm smarter than you. Give it up

Yeah that was tough to find.

Marriage Rights Won t Save Gays From Being Fired in Most States - Bloomberg Politics

Yet Indiana and Arkansas already were among the 28 states, primarily in the South and middle of the country, where gays can be denied private-sector jobs or housing purely on the basis of sexual orientation. In 29 states, gays can be refused service in retail stores.

And people that look funny, smell funny, have tattoos or piercings or a billion other things can be denied employment as well. That does not mean that government needs to get involved. Now, if gays were not able to find employment that would be another story altogether – there would be a situation occurring that was holding an entire demographic back but there is no significant barrier for gays becoming employed anywhere.
There are even jobs where gays are PREFERRED. I know – the horror.

 

[Katzndogz]

Next gays will give their wedding guest lists to the police who will drag unwilling attendees to celebrate under penalty of arrest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MAC1958 SAID:

“Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.”

No one is being 'forced' to do anything; this concerns only compliance with necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Many business owners don't want to pay a minimum wage, for example, and are opposed to doing so predicated on subjective, errant political dogma – but they pay their employees a minimum wage regardless to comply with the law, where minimum wage laws are also necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Business owners need to likewise conduct themselves as professionals and comply with public accommodations laws, where their appropriate recourse in opposition to these laws is through the political process to seek to have them repealed, not to violate the law.

The mistake you and others on the right make is to attempt to contrive and propagate the lie that state and local public accommodations laws represent some sort of 'social engineering,' or exist as a manifestation of 'Kumbaya-do-good-ism,' when in fact public accommodations laws reflect only just and appropriate market regulation, not an attempt to 'change minds.'

Indeed, this is why state and local public accommodations laws are Constitutional, because their sole intent is regulatory, not to 'disadvantage' religious practice. And being required to comply with public accommodations laws comports with both Free Exercise Clause and Takings Clause jurisprudence, because government is infringing on neither religious rights nor property rights.

Consequently, your concern and the concern of other conservatives that bigots and racists are being 'denied' their right to be bigots and racists is completely unfounded, devoid of merit, and in no way supported by the facts of law.

 

[Seawytch]

In Indiana, a gay person can still be fired from a job or denied a job, simply for being gay.

Please forgive me for doubting you but since we all know what lying scum dimocraps are, can you provide a link to the last person to be fired for being gay in Indiana (or anywhere else).

There are still laws on the books that require a man to walk in front of an automobile at night carrying a gas lamp, too.

I'm smarter than you. Give it up

Yeah that was tough to find.

Marriage Rights Won t Save Gays From Being Fired in Most States - Bloomberg Politics

Yet Indiana and Arkansas already were among the 28 states, primarily in the South and middle of the country, where gays can be denied private-sector jobs or housing purely on the basis of sexual orientation. In 29 states, gays can be refused service in retail stores.

And people that look funny, smell funny, have tattoos or piercings or a billion other things can be denied employment as well. That does not mean that government needs to get involved. Now, if gays were not able to find employment that would be another story altogether – there would be a situation occurring that was holding an entire demographic back but there is no significant barrier for gays becoming employed anywhere.
There are even jobs where gays are PREFERRED. I know – the horror.

You are comparing unrelated things...and in some places appearance has been added to public accommodation and employment laws.

Why are Christians protected by FEDERAL Employment Discrimination and Public Accommodation laws? Can't Christians find employment elsewhere?

How about get rid of the Federal laws protecting Christians before going after local laws protecting gays.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I would suggest that we do the obvious: Work together to come up with a creative, flexible idea that people can live with.

How about this: An ordinance that says that if a service is the only one of its kind available within an X mile radius, accommodations rules apply. If a person can flip off a bigot who doesn't want to serve gays or blacks or Martians or whomever and go a few blocks to a competitor, such an ordinance is not required. Such an ordinance would be made clear to any shop that opens in such areas, so they can't make any excuses.

Perhaps we could build on something like that.

I realize how gauche it is to suggest that people work together to come up with creative, flexible ideas, but it would not kill us to try.

.

Great! Get 'er done. PA laws per capita. I'm in!

Holy crap, I didn't expect THAT response.



By the way, the second part of my little plan: Once this is done (and don't hold your breath, of course) we get to the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds with reason, civility and patience, rather than anger, intimidation and punishment. Get some momentum going, maybe make most of these laws irrelevant.

.

I'd add to your plan that the businesses that didn't want to serve gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. would have to advertise that fact. Businesses that don't come into my home don't usually know I'm gay so I don't want to waste my money on them when they don't want it.

People have been working on these issues with reason, civility and patience...how do you think we got to the point where gays aren't used as the evil that must be protected against? How do you think we got to the point where bigots try to pass laws to discriminate against gays and the backlash is instantaneous?

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

These "strange attempts" are business as usual for bigots. They tried the same things in the 60 with desegregation and misengenation.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

Didn't they? Since desegregation and the striking down of interracial marriage laws, people did change their minds didn't they? When they could no longer separate themselves from "those people" they actually got to know "those people" and found out they were, in fact, 100% human.

We just have different approaches. I prefer communication, reason, civility, patience. I'm not into the fighting and intimidating and punishing and anger, I'm just not good at it, and I just don't understand when people do it. It's like a foreign language, it just doesn't compute.

I assume you & I want the same things for the most part, we just have different opinions on how to get there.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

In Indiana, a gay person can still be fired from a job or denied a job, simply for being gay.

Please forgive me for doubting you but since we all know what lying scum dimocraps are, can you provide a link to the last person to be fired for being gay in Indiana (or anywhere else).

There are still laws on the books that require a man to walk in front of an automobile at night carrying a gas lamp, too.

I'm smarter than you. Give it up

Yeah that was tough to find.

Marriage Rights Won t Save Gays From Being Fired in Most States - Bloomberg Politics

Yet Indiana and Arkansas already were among the 28 states, primarily in the South and middle of the country, where gays can be denied private-sector jobs or housing purely on the basis of sexual orientation. In 29 states, gays can be refused service in retail stores.

And people that look funny, smell funny, have tattoos or piercings or a billion other things can be denied employment as well. That does not mean that government needs to get involved. Now, if gays were not able to find employment that would be another story altogether – there would be a situation occurring that was holding an entire demographic back but there is no significant barrier for gays becoming employed anywhere.
There are even jobs where gays are PREFERRED. I know – the horror.

You are comparing unrelated things...and in some places appearance has been added to public accommodation and employment laws.

Why are Christians protected by FEDERAL Employment Discrimination and Public Accommodation laws? Can't Christians find employment elsewhere?

How about get rid of the Federal laws protecting Christians before going after local laws protecting gays.

I have no problem with getting rid of most of those laws. None at all. But you are not advocating for getting rid of them - instead you are trying to EXPAND them. How about we stop expanding them first. It is real difficult to drop laws that you are demanding that we expand.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

My "side"?

What "side" is that, precisely?

.

 

[dblack]

MAC1958 SAID:

“Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.”

No one is being 'forced' to do anything; this concerns only compliance with necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Right. No one is 'forced' to follow any law. That's why they call it law enforcement. The police merely request that you follow the law, so you can avoid imprisonment or death. It's all voluntary, right C?

The mistake you and others on the right make is to attempt to contrive and propagate the lie that state and local public accommodations laws represent some sort of 'social engineering,' or exist as a manifestation of 'Kumbaya-do-good-ism,' when in fact public accommodations laws reflect only just and appropriate market regulation, not an attempt to 'change minds.'

Nonsense. The target unpopular bigotry for political reasons. Sophistry to the contrary is sheer bs. Excuses.

Indeed, this is why state and local public accommodations laws are Constitutional, because their sole intent is regulatory, not to 'disadvantage' religious practice. And being required to comply with public accommodations laws comports with both Free Exercise Clause and Takings Clause jurisprudence, because government is infringing on neither religious rights nor property rights.

Their sole intent is to suppress certain kinds of prejudice. If you can't admit that, I can't take your argument seriously at all.

 

[JoeMoma]

back to businesses serving the public ...

fine.

Hang a sign in the window that says

" We do NOT serve QUEERS our product "

or

"Come In. This business serves the public. Welcome"


take your chances and go from there.

The End.

No! The sign would actually say
"We don't provide products or services that endorse the homosexual lifestyle".

Gays have access to the products routinely provided by the businesses. Neither straights nor gays may have acess to products or services that endorse homosexuality.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

.

 

[dblack]

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

That's called "validation".

 

[Freewill]

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

 

[Freewill]

I'd disagree that there has been a great deal of reason, civility and patience, and I think that the proliferation of all these strange attempts at lawmaking are essentially a kneejerk reaction. Those who "disagree" (whatever that might actually mean) with homosexuality are only going to get more and more defensive in this climate.

Can we agree that if someone is forced to provide a service against their will, it's not exactly going to change their mind on that topic? Seems to me it's human nature to want to fight back. It's a new world now, more and more people are accepting homosexuality (or, more to the point, just don't care), and I think it might be time to take another shot at calm conversation.

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

And as for "more and more people" accepting homosexuality, a huge number of those people have been frightened or intimidated into "accepting" homosexuality because they don't want to risk being called "haters," "bigots," etc.

You guys just keep lying and twisting words and avoiding the numerous logical objections to your authoritarian, undemocratic ideology.

If it's "discrimination" for a religious vendor to decline to host/service a gay wedding, then it's also "discrimination" for an Orthodox Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake that hails Hitler and includes a likeness of him; then it's "discrimination" for a Muslim florist in Europe to refuse to do the flower arrangement at a "commitment ceremony" between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl who's about to move in with the old pervert; then it's discrimination for a Catholic baker to refuse to bake a cake for local Wiccan group that wants to use the cake in a ceremony to mock Catholicism; then it's "discrimination" for a pro-gay baker in Colorado to refuse to bake a cake that includes Bible verses on marriage and homosexuality (ah, but the "Civil Rights Commission" in Colorado decided that that refusal was okay, even though they had earlier ruled that a Christian baker had committed "discrimination" for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding); etc., etc., etc.

I love this.

I've got a left winger calling me a right winger, and a right winger calling me a left winger.

In the same thread.

Perfect.

This place is a HOOT.

.

Sounds like your views are conflicted.

 

[JoeMoma]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

Because gays and Muslims can grow their own food and make their own fuel, right?

Gays and Muslims are not being denied the general products that everyone else have access to.