Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bendog]

But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's.

Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.

If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..

That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?

Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.

So now you have a Constitutional right to never be insulted? You must feel violated a lot, then, because I really doubt there are many people who meet you and don't feel the urge to mock and ridicule.

I think I just posted that one does NOT have a right to being free from insult, and imo insulting people should not be illegal.

I do disagree with this article on its final point, where the author states some of the bakers probably discriminate from honest moral belief. I agree that some, and even most, of the bakers believe they are adhering to honestly held moral/religious beliefs. However, unless they are not baking for other sinners, imo they are singling the "one" sin that really bugs them. And, obviously, I think their religious beliefs are as fanciful as unicorns. But, I think they have a right to believe in unicorns.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed The Atlantic

People who believe differently may choose not to contract with them, in the same way they choose not to contract with gay people getting married, though.

 

[bendog]

When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.

Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

When it comes to

But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.

But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.

If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..

The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.

Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.

Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.

Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.

If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.

The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.

How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.

Do you know the bakers have inquired into whether the hetero couples had sex while married to another? Are YOU assuming they did? I only said unless they made the inquiry, they appear to only be interested in one kind of sin. You should read more carefully, as sloth and ignorance go hand in hand.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's.

Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.

If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..

That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?

Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.

So now you have a Constitutional right to never be insulted? You must feel violated a lot, then, because I really doubt there are many people who meet you and don't feel the urge to mock and ridicule.

I think I just posted that one does NOT have a right to being free from insult, and imo insulting people should not be illegal.

I do disagree with this article on its final point, where the author states some of the bakers probably discriminate from honest moral belief. I agree that some, and even most, of the bakers believe they are adhering to honestly held moral/religious beliefs. However, unless they are not baking for other sinners, imo they are singling the "one" sin that really bugs them. And, obviously, I think their religious beliefs are as fanciful as unicorns. But, I think they have a right to believe in unicorns.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed The Atlantic

People who believe differently may choose not to contract with them, in the same way they choose not to contract with gay people getting married, though.

Maybe we aren't typing slow enough. For the umpteenth time, the issue is not the baker's opinion of gay people or whether the baker should sell products he has to sell to gay people who come into his store.

The issue is whether the baker or anybody else, straight, gay, black, white, purple, or a little green man from mars, should be forced to participate, under penalty of physical or material punishment, in an event to which he or she chooses not to participate.

If you cannot see the difference between that and whatever somebody's opinion is about homosexuality or adultery or any 'sin' then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Foxfyre]

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

When it comes to

The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.

Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.

Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.

Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.

If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.

The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.

How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.

Do you know the bakers have inquired into whether the hetero couples had sex while married to another? Are YOU assuming they did? I only said unless they made the inquiry, they appear to only be interested in one kind of sin. You should read more carefully, as sloth and ignorance go hand in hand.

You are arguing that the bakers should have to participate in the gay wedding and have condoned physical and material punishment of the bakers who chose not to do so. And apart from that, it doesn't matter what the bakers inquired about or what their opinion of sin is or what they do or do not condone. That is simply building a separate straw man to attack and has nothing to do with the issue of whether anybody--that is ANYBODY--should be forced into participating in an event to which he/she chooses not to participate for ANY reason.

None of us should have the right to demand that sombody else participate in our activity above and beyond what any customer gets on the customer's premises. Nobody has a right not to be discriminated against in that regard.

 

[bendog]

But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's.

Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.

If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..

That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?

Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.

So now you have a Constitutional right to never be insulted? You must feel violated a lot, then, because I really doubt there are many people who meet you and don't feel the urge to mock and ridicule.

I think I just posted that one does NOT have a right to being free from insult, and imo insulting people should not be illegal.

I do disagree with this article on its final point, where the author states some of the bakers probably discriminate from honest moral belief. I agree that some, and even most, of the bakers believe they are adhering to honestly held moral/religious beliefs. However, unless they are not baking for other sinners, imo they are singling the "one" sin that really bugs them. And, obviously, I think their religious beliefs are as fanciful as unicorns. But, I think they have a right to believe in unicorns.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed The Atlantic

People who believe differently may choose not to contract with them, in the same way they choose not to contract with gay people getting married, though.

Maybe we aren't typing slow enough. For the umpteenth time, the issue is not the baker's opinion of gay people or whether the baker should sell products he has to sell to gay people who come into his store.

The issue is whether the baker or anybody else, straight, gay, black, white, purple, or a little green man from mars, should be forced to participate, under penalty of physical or material punishment, in an event to which he or she chooses not to participate.

If you cannot see the difference between that and whatever somebody's opinion is about homosexuality or adultery or any 'sin' then I don't know what to tell you.

I just agree that the baker should have right to not sell to anyone he doesn't want to. But, people should have a right to purchase only from those they want to purchase from.

That doesn't mean there's no insult from or to either the buyer or the seller resulting from the decision to sell or buy. Maybe there is insult, and maybe not. Either way, imo it's irrelevant.

But at the same time, I think it's only reasonable that GLBT people not want any private employment or insurance discrimination, and of course they should expect equal protection in terms of what govt does to them. And that wouldn't mean a small baker need hire them, as the baker probably hires family or friends.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.

That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?

Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.

So now you have a Constitutional right to never be insulted? You must feel violated a lot, then, because I really doubt there are many people who meet you and don't feel the urge to mock and ridicule.

I think I just posted that one does NOT have a right to being free from insult, and imo insulting people should not be illegal.

I do disagree with this article on its final point, where the author states some of the bakers probably discriminate from honest moral belief. I agree that some, and even most, of the bakers believe they are adhering to honestly held moral/religious beliefs. However, unless they are not baking for other sinners, imo they are singling the "one" sin that really bugs them. And, obviously, I think their religious beliefs are as fanciful as unicorns. But, I think they have a right to believe in unicorns.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed The Atlantic

People who believe differently may choose not to contract with them, in the same way they choose not to contract with gay people getting married, though.

Maybe we aren't typing slow enough. For the umpteenth time, the issue is not the baker's opinion of gay people or whether the baker should sell products he has to sell to gay people who come into his store.

The issue is whether the baker or anybody else, straight, gay, black, white, purple, or a little green man from mars, should be forced to participate, under penalty of physical or material punishment, in an event to which he or she chooses not to participate.

If you cannot see the difference between that and whatever somebody's opinion is about homosexuality or adultery or any 'sin' then I don't know what to tell you.

I just agree that the baker should have right to not sell to anyone he doesn't want to. But, people should have a right to purchase only from those they want to purchase from.

That doesn't mean there's no insult from or to either the buyer or the seller resulting from the decision to sell or buy. Maybe there is insult, and maybe not. Either way, imo it's irrelevant.

But at the same time, I think it's only reasonable that GLBT people not want any private employment or insurance discrimination, and of course they should expect equal protection in terms of what govt does to them. And that wouldn't mean a small baker need hire them, as the baker probably hires family or friends.

I am not advocating for ANYBODY to be discriminated against because of who or what they are. That is a different subject.

Nor am I suggesting that every person should not have the full right to choose what businesses he or she will do business with or not do business with. I do believe that as long as the customer conducts himself in an appropriate manner, he should be able to buy whatever legal product the business has in stock.

The argument I am making is the right of each of us to our own thoughts, beliefs, convictions, opinions, and determination of what activities we will participate in without fear of ORGANIZED retaliation by people who intend to punish us for exercising that right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ironically this was just posted on Facebook today. Click on the video. This guy is making my argument and doing a great job doing it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

When it comes to

The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.

Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.

Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.

Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.

If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.

The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.

How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.

Do you know the bakers have inquired into whether the hetero couples had sex while married to another? Are YOU assuming they did? I only said unless they made the inquiry, they appear to only be interested in one kind of sin. You should read more carefully, as sloth and ignorance go hand in hand.

Wow, another post based on their practice of their religious beliefs having to meet the standard of what you think they should believe and how they should practice it, thus based upon a false premise and therefore utterly worthless and wasting my time and screenspace.

Say something that actually needs to be said.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Are you saying you want protection from ever being embarrassed?

They want protection from life in general.... how sad.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.

That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?

Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.

So now you have a Constitutional right to never be insulted? You must feel violated a lot, then, because I really doubt there are many people who meet you and don't feel the urge to mock and ridicule.

I think I just posted that one does NOT have a right to being free from insult, and imo insulting people should not be illegal.

I do disagree with this article on its final point, where the author states some of the bakers probably discriminate from honest moral belief. I agree that some, and even most, of the bakers believe they are adhering to honestly held moral/religious beliefs. However, unless they are not baking for other sinners, imo they are singling the "one" sin that really bugs them. And, obviously, I think their religious beliefs are as fanciful as unicorns. But, I think they have a right to believe in unicorns.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed The Atlantic

People who believe differently may choose not to contract with them, in the same way they choose not to contract with gay people getting married, though.

Maybe we aren't typing slow enough. For the umpteenth time, the issue is not the baker's opinion of gay people or whether the baker should sell products he has to sell to gay people who come into his store.

The issue is whether the baker or anybody else, straight, gay, black, white, purple, or a little green man from mars, should be forced to participate, under penalty of physical or material punishment, in an event to which he or she chooses not to participate.

If you cannot see the difference between that and whatever somebody's opinion is about homosexuality or adultery or any 'sin' then I don't know what to tell you.

I just agree that the baker should have right to not sell to anyone he doesn't want to. But, people should have a right to purchase only from those they want to purchase from.

That doesn't mean there's no insult from or to either the buyer or the seller resulting from the decision to sell or buy. Maybe there is insult, and maybe not. Either way, imo it's irrelevant.

But at the same time, I think it's only reasonable that GLBT people not want any private employment or insurance discrimination, and of course they should expect equal protection in terms of what govt does to them. And that wouldn't mean a small baker need hire them, as the baker probably hires family or friends.

And you want what? Applause? A gold star? A brownie? Because you "generously" agree to allow people their freedom, right before utterly contradicting everything we were supposed to admire you for?

Whatever.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.

But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.

If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..

The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.

Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.

Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.

Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.

If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.

The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

ROFLMFAO, it's fairly easy to spot gays, especially when one is flaming............
How is this baker supposed to know who are adulterer's??
What's the key thing we need to look for??

Dude your moronic shit is so funny, now I'ma gonna make fun of your dumb ass ......................

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

When it comes to

The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.

Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.

Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.

Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.

If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.

The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.

How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.

Do you know the bakers have inquired into whether the hetero couples had sex while married to another? Are YOU assuming they did? I only said unless they made the inquiry, they appear to only be interested in one kind of sin. You should read more carefully, as sloth and ignorance go hand in hand.

What kind of fucking moronic baker ask about your sex life when you come to buy a cake, dickhead??

 

[bripat9643]

When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.

Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.

But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.

If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..

You're an imbecile. Your post is too stupid to waste time refuting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Referring back to that video I posted a little while ago, where are the headlines announcing the bigotry of the Muslims who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding? Where are the organized protests, boycotts, demonstrations, and lawsuits? Where are all the threads condemning those people for their discriminatory practices?

Why should those Muslims get a pass if it is seen as noble and righteous to drive a Christian out of business because he/she holds a politically incorrect point of view and chooses not to participate in a particular activity?

Is that not discriminating against Christians?

 

[Cecilie1200]

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

When it comes to

If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.

The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.

How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.

Do you know the bakers have inquired into whether the hetero couples had sex while married to another? Are YOU assuming they did? I only said unless they made the inquiry, they appear to only be interested in one kind of sin. You should read more carefully, as sloth and ignorance go hand in hand.

What kind of fucking moronic baker ask about your sex life when you come to buy a cake, dickhead??

Leftists think the entire world is as fascinated by their sex lives as they are, and thus assume we're all waiting with bated breath to find out about it. The truth, of course, is that most of us desperately wish they'd shut up about it.

 

[rdean]

Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

Only if you are a Republican. Everyone else is "fair game".

 

[Conservative65]

No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.

But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.

The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.

We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.

A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.

When it comes to

You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.

How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.

That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.

How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.

Do you know the bakers have inquired into whether the hetero couples had sex while married to another? Are YOU assuming they did? I only said unless they made the inquiry, they appear to only be interested in one kind of sin. You should read more carefully, as sloth and ignorance go hand in hand.

What kind of fucking moronic baker ask about your sex life when you come to buy a cake, dickhead??

Leftists think the entire world is as fascinated by their sex lives as they are, and thus assume we're all waiting with bated breath to find out about it. The truth, of course, is that most of us desperately wish they'd shut up about it.

That's how they convinced themselves it was a problem. They demand people accept what they want and when people said no, they make it out as if we went looking for them instead of the other way around.

I don't care who someone lies in bed with. However, when they say I have to like it or support it by bringing what they say is a private issue into the public, they shouldn't be surprised when people say no.
Their problem is they only want to hear "yes" as an answer and when they don't, suddenly we went after them.

 

[paperview]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.

Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise.

But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”


― Barry M. Goldwater "Mr. Conservative"

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.

Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise.

But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”


― Barry M. Goldwater "Mr. Conservative"

You folks are scared of God and the Christian religion.
Just as in Rome the Christians came in a put an end to that filth and perversion.

Under Christian rule
Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.[194] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.[195]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.[196] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.[197] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:[198] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.[199] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.[200]

The circumstances surrounding the massacre of Thessalonica in 390 suggest that even in the late 4th century same-sex behavior was still accepted in large parts of the population, while officially prosecuted.[citation needed] When a popular charioteer was arrested for having sexually harassed an army-commander or servant of the emperor, the people of the town were calling for his release, though this is more likely due to his popularity than to the nature of the allegation.[

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you seem to fail to realize is,these people are acting in the name of Christian religion. You keep wanting to portray religious entities as believing in mythical sky fairies like they are mental nut jobs.

I have stated this before and for your dumb ass will state it again, religions are societal road maps that tells one how to interact with a specific sub set of the general populous.
If all your childish mentality sees is a mythical sky fairy, then we all understand you are just not mentally capable of seeing the big picture.

There are many religions out there in which homosexuality is taboo, the part you are failing to realize is people do have a choice about who they associate with or not. No amount of legislation will ever change that fact.
Christians view homosexuality as an abomination, a disease of pure self pleasure from a weak person who lacks self control or an individual who is so socially retarded they don't know how to interact with the opposite sex.
Christians view the sexual acts committed by same sex couples as vile and evil with only thoughts of self indulgence or simply control over another............

By the way, I noticed you are too retarded to discuss this, you are good at putting out worthless propaganda, pretty much otherwise a dumb fuck devoid of intellectual thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.

Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise.

But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”


― Barry M. Goldwater "Mr. Conservative"

You folks are scared of God and the Christian religion.
Just as in Rome the Christians came in a put an end to that filth and perversion.

Under Christian rule
Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.[194] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.[195]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.[196] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.[197] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:[198] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.[199] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.[200]

The circumstances surrounding the massacre of Thessalonica in 390 suggest that even in the late 4th century same-sex behavior was still accepted in large parts of the population, while officially prosecuted.[citation needed] When a popular charioteer was arrested for having sexually harassed an army-commander or servant of the emperor, the people of the town were calling for his release, though this is more likely due to his popularity than to the nature of the allegation.[

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you seem to fail to realize is,these people are acting in the name of Christian religion. You keep wanting to portray religious entities as believing in mythical sky fairies like they are mental nut jobs.

I have stated this before and for your dumb ass will state it again, religions are societal road maps that tells one how to interact with a specific sub set of the general populous.
If all your childish mentality sees is a mythical sky fairy, then we all understand you are just not mentally capable of seeing the big picture.

There are many religions out there in which homosexuality is taboo, the part you are failing to realize is people do have a choice about who they associate with or not. No amount of legislation will ever change that fact.
Christians view homosexuality as an abomination, a disease of pure self pleasure from a weak person who lacks self control or an individual who is so socially retarded they don't know how to interact with the opposite sex.
Christians view the sexual acts committed by same sex couples as vile and evil with only thoughts of self indulgence or simply control over another............

By the way, I noticed you are too retarded to discuss this, you are good at putting out worthless propaganda, pretty much otherwise a dumb fuck devoid of intellectual thought.

Wiki sometimes offers one point of view that doesn't really hold up under scholarly scrutiny.

Stanford has pulled together a pretty good history of views about homosexuality and the cultures that existed over time in the Roman Empire here:
Homosexuality Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The more puritanical and restrictive laws did not come about until well into the Middle Ages when the Roman Empire was pretty much faded in anybody's memory, and what most of us would now consider archaic laws were just as restrictive on heterosexuals as they were on homosexuals. And since those laws are now a matter of history and not part of modern day culture, I'm pretty sure we can safely dismiss them as relevent to this discussion.

So far not a single brave soul has dared even acknowledge, much less address my question posed yesterday:

Why isn't there public outrage, demonstrations, protests, boycotts, etc. of Muslim bakeries, florists, flower shops etc. who refuse to provide services for same sex weddings? Why are only Christians evil if they do that?

And if the Muslims are not to be subject to the same treatment as Christians, how is that not discriminating against Christians?