Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.
Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.
As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.
In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.
We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.
As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.
In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.
We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
I'm still going to have better luck than you will regardless of whether you want to do away with them or simply alter them. Most people don't think you should be able to refuse service to gays, fire gays for being gay or kick people out of their homes for being gay...despite the fact that in half the states you can do just that.
Why are you adding "fire gays and kick gays out of homes"? Where have I ever stated that is my intent in all this?
What I want is someone to show me the actual harm suffered by people having to find another baker/photographer or florist (lol) for their wedding, and that doesn't include hurt feelings.
I never ascribed those to you, merely pointed out the consequences of s state not having LGBT protections.
Where is the harm in an interracial couple having to find another "baker/photographer or florist (lol) for their wedding, and that doesn't include hurt feelings."
Funny that Marty thinks that isn't happening.Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?
The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.
Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.
As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.
In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.
No, your goal in all this is to get gay butthurt superior to christian butthurt.
Not superior, equal.
Either I get to discriminate against the Christian or he doesn't get to against me.
A business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.
As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.
In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.
We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
What class to you have an issue with being "protected"? I bet you have no problem with YOUR class being protected....Funny that Marty thinks that isn't happening.The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.
Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.
As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.
In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.
No, your goal in all this is to get gay butthurt superior to christian butthurt.
Not superior, equal.
Either I get to discriminate against the Christian or he doesn't get to against me.
Any time a class is considered "protected", you are asking for consideration above and beyond that which others get.
So, you don't want the government handing out business licenses, setting up health and safety laws for businesses, zoning, etc. Interesting.A business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then why get government involved?
What class to you have an issue with being "protected"? I bet you have no problem with YOUR class being protected....Funny that Marty thinks that isn't happening.Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.
As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.
In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.
No, your goal in all this is to get gay butthurt superior to christian butthurt.
Not superior, equal.
Either I get to discriminate against the Christian or he doesn't get to against me.
Any time a class is considered "protected", you are asking for consideration above and beyond that which others get.
So, you don't want the government handing out business licenses, setting up health and safety laws for businesses, zoning, etc. Interesting.A business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then why get government involved?
Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respondA business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then why get government involved?
Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respondA business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then why get government involved?
Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respondA business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?
Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then why get government involved?
No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.
What if the normal nature of the public is total chaos?The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.
What if you are a mouse lord?What if the normal nature of the public is total chaos?The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.
For things where there is no economic harm, why should the government care? And again, these places did not deny sale on a walk up basis to these couples, they did not want to provide a contracted service in relation to a gay wedding, something they find offensive.
The only thing that occurs in this case is hurt feelings, and hurt feelings is not worthy of government intervention to ruin someone over.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respondA business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.
Then why get government involved?
No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.
Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.
Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respondA business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.
Then why get government involved?
No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.
Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.
They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.
They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.
For things where there is no economic harm, why should the government care? And again, these places did not deny sale on a walk up basis to these couples, they did not want to provide a contracted service in relation to a gay wedding, something they find offensive.
The only thing that occurs in this case is hurt feelings, and hurt feelings is not worthy of government intervention to ruin someone over.
That's a matter of opinion. The only way you end Homophobia is to ruin a few people.
Just like the way we ended racism is to make sure the guy who screams the N-word out loud pays a hefty price for it.
But in the case of the Kleins, they INVITED the Cryer-Bowman's to their shop to get this specific service, and then changed their minds after inflicting some homophobic verbal abuse. Just not going to get worked up over it.
You don't want to serve gays, then close up your business.
Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.
In short, you want to make it a higher hill for the complainant to climb, not the business.
The other side does have a right. They can believe in whatever malicious invisible man in the sky they want to. But once they say, "We sell wedding cakes", they have to sell wedding cakes.
That's a pretty simple interpretation of the law.
