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.
No, they just have stagnant, non-reproducing populations being overrun by far more reactionary and religious populations.
yes, that's the mythical Europe you've created in your mind. my guess is you don't even own a passport.
It's not "gays" doing, it's progressive nimrods who happen to be gay, or support crushing people who disagree with them, and find the gay thing an efficient path for it.
Ah, yes, that's like folks in the Old South who said that their coloreds were perfectly happy with Jim Crow, but it was them "outside agitators" from the North who were stirring up trouble.
Of course, the facts of the Klein case don't really support your position. The Cryer-Bowmans were not 'activists'. They were people who were invited to use the Klein's services, and then subjected to a homophobic rant from Mr. Klein. When they complained to the proper authorities, the Kleins outed them publically and subjected them to death threats.
When the Kleins still failed to realize how badly they fucked up, the State of Oregon dropped a big old fine on them.
Assault is Assault, adding 5 years to the punishment would have been moot if the public was still at worst OK, and at best ambivalent over crimes towards gays. Hate crime laws are feel good crap, just punish the people for the actual crime, and not the crimethink that goes with it.
I have not seen why commerce trumps religious beliefs when no actual harm is involved. You idiots keep saying the same line over and over and do nothing to back it up.
Assault is Assault, adding 5 years to the punishment would have been moot if the public was still at worst OK, and at best ambivalent over crimes towards gays. Hate crime laws are feel good crap, just punish the people for the actual crime, and not the crimethink that goes with it.
Uh, guy, we always take "intent" into account when punishing a crime. It's why guys who get into a bar fight are usually sent home with a warning while the creep who beats up a gay person is going to prison. And that's how IT SHOULD BE!
I have not seen why commerce trumps religious beliefs when no actual harm is involved. You idiots keep saying the same line over and over and do nothing to back it up.
Well, you mean other than 50 years of settled case law, you mean?
You try to separate it, but it doesn't work. I expect a butcher to sell meat, pork is meat, he isn't selling pork (meat) because of his religion, he must be punished.
Again, you can't compare systemic discrimination that removed both economic and political power, to the current situation. You can try, but it doesn't float.
You try to separate it, but it doesn't work. I expect a butcher to sell meat, pork is meat, he isn't selling pork (meat) because of his religion, he must be punished.
You try to separate it, but it doesn't work. I expect a butcher to sell meat, pork is meat, he isn't selling pork (meat) because of his religion, he must be punished.
Except there were no signs up saying, "We Sell Pork". there was a sign up saying "Wedding Cakes" at Melissa's. Oh, yeah, and Melissa Klien specifically said, "Come on in when you want a wedding cake for your totally gay commitment ceremony."
So, no, not really comparable at all.
Again, you can't compare systemic discrimination that removed both economic and political power, to the current situation. You can try, but it doesn't float.
It doesn't float for you, happy in your White Privilage.
You've never experienced discrimination in your life. That's why you are so fucked up. If you did, you'd realize how much it sucks.
You try to separate it, but it doesn't work. I expect a butcher to sell meat, pork is meat, he isn't selling pork (meat) because of his religion, he must be punished.
LMAO. Hey all the bakeries have to do is bake a cake that is so bad that no one will eat it. No discrimination. Just a real shity product. Problem solved.
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority
You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.
And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.
Way to cover your bases...ask for proof but discount the proof before it's provided.
Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People
A full two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 78% of LGBT Americans, agreed that a government official should be obligated to serve all of the public and perform all duties, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Out & Equal Workplace survey also confirmed that 60% of Americans (and 80% of LGBT individuals) believe that business owners should not be permitted to turn away anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Again, with surveys, its all about asking the question. Ask them if a business should be forced to close their doors if they don't want to cater a gay wedding, and I'm sure the # goes down. Americans like fairness, they don't like punishing people, so change the question from more positive (not permitted) to more negative (punishment) and you get different numbers for the answers.
And 60% is hardly a gigantic majority, and in any event below the threshold to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Discrimination isn't a Constitutionally protected right. What was the public's thinking when we desegregated?
Freedom of religion is, and unless you can show an actual harm caused by it in these cases, it outweighs another persons right to free commerce. Mostly because the government then has to inflict harm on the first party to force either compliance or submission.
But why does someone else have the right to make you go against your beliefs simply for hurt feelings, where there is no actual harm done?
If something you do is against your beliefs, you should probably find another line of work.
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
Public Accommodation laws do not require that specific goods and services be offered. A Kosher Butcher is free not to sell pork because the owner does not sell pork to anyone.
If a Kosher Butcher that did sell pork (but then they wouldn't be a Kosher Butcher would they) they can't sell only to Christians and not Jews or Muslims. They would be in violation of State level Public Accommodation laws that don't allow refusal of sale based on the religion of the customer just like a Baker that supplies wedding cakes refusing to sell wedding cakes based on the sex composition of the couple purchasing the cake.
>>>>
You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.
And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.
Way to cover your bases...ask for proof but discount the proof before it's provided.
Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People
A full two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 78% of LGBT Americans, agreed that a government official should be obligated to serve all of the public and perform all duties, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Out & Equal Workplace survey also confirmed that 60% of Americans (and 80% of LGBT individuals) believe that business owners should not be permitted to turn away anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Again, with surveys, its all about asking the question. Ask them if a business should be forced to close their doors if they don't want to cater a gay wedding, and I'm sure the # goes down. Americans like fairness, they don't like punishing people, so change the question from more positive (not permitted) to more negative (punishment) and you get different numbers for the answers.
And 60% is hardly a gigantic majority, and in any event below the threshold to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Discrimination isn't a Constitutionally protected right. What was the public's thinking when we desegregated?
Freedom of religion is, and unless you can show an actual harm caused by it in these cases, it outweighs another persons right to free commerce. Mostly because the government then has to inflict harm on the first party to force either compliance or submission.
Who was harmed when blacks couldn't eat at the Woolworth's counter? Who is harmed when an interracial couple is denied service or a Jewish couple? Why are they deserving of protections gays are not?
But why does someone else have the right to make you go against your beliefs simply for hurt feelings, where there is no actual harm done?
If something you do is against your beliefs, you should probably find another line of work.
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
You're smarter than that Marty. No establishment has been told they must carry a product they don't carry or perform a service they don't perform.
But why does someone else have the right to make you go against your beliefs simply for hurt feelings, where there is no actual harm done?
If something you do is against your beliefs, you should probably find another line of work.
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
You're smarter than that Marty. No establishment has been told they must carry a product they don't carry or perform a service they don't perform.
Way to cover your bases...ask for proof but discount the proof before it's provided.
Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People
A full two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 78% of LGBT Americans, agreed that a government official should be obligated to serve all of the public and perform all duties, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Out & Equal Workplace survey also confirmed that 60% of Americans (and 80% of LGBT individuals) believe that business owners should not be permitted to turn away anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Again, with surveys, its all about asking the question. Ask them if a business should be forced to close their doors if they don't want to cater a gay wedding, and I'm sure the # goes down. Americans like fairness, they don't like punishing people, so change the question from more positive (not permitted) to more negative (punishment) and you get different numbers for the answers.
And 60% is hardly a gigantic majority, and in any event below the threshold to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Discrimination isn't a Constitutionally protected right. What was the public's thinking when we desegregated?
Freedom of religion is, and unless you can show an actual harm caused by it in these cases, it outweighs another persons right to free commerce. Mostly because the government then has to inflict harm on the first party to force either compliance or submission.
Who was harmed when blacks couldn't eat at the Woolworth's counter? Who is harmed when an interracial couple is denied service or a Jewish couple? Why are they deserving of protections gays are not?
The counter thing was again, a symptom of systemic economic and political discrimination. Plus, I don't deny a point of sale walk in business is a PA, and can be protected as such, mostly due to the harm caused by the inevitable confrontations that would result from segregated eating areas.
My issue is with contracted services for specific events that are contrary to the moral code of the supplier of the service.
Again, with surveys, its all about asking the question. Ask them if a business should be forced to close their doors if they don't want to cater a gay wedding, and I'm sure the # goes down. Americans like fairness, they don't like punishing people, so change the question from more positive (not permitted) to more negative (punishment) and you get different numbers for the answers.
And 60% is hardly a gigantic majority, and in any event below the threshold to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Discrimination isn't a Constitutionally protected right. What was the public's thinking when we desegregated?
Freedom of religion is, and unless you can show an actual harm caused by it in these cases, it outweighs another persons right to free commerce. Mostly because the government then has to inflict harm on the first party to force either compliance or submission.
Who was harmed when blacks couldn't eat at the Woolworth's counter? Who is harmed when an interracial couple is denied service or a Jewish couple? Why are they deserving of protections gays are not?
The counter thing was again, a symptom of systemic economic and political discrimination. Plus, I don't deny a point of sale walk in business is a PA, and can be protected as such, mostly due to the harm caused by the inevitable confrontations that would result from segregated eating areas.
My issue is with contracted services for specific events that are contrary to the moral code of the supplier of the service.
You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?
Discrimination isn't a Constitutionally protected right. What was the public's thinking when we desegregated?
Freedom of religion is, and unless you can show an actual harm caused by it in these cases, it outweighs another persons right to free commerce. Mostly because the government then has to inflict harm on the first party to force either compliance or submission.
Who was harmed when blacks couldn't eat at the Woolworth's counter? Who is harmed when an interracial couple is denied service or a Jewish couple? Why are they deserving of protections gays are not?
The counter thing was again, a symptom of systemic economic and political discrimination. Plus, I don't deny a point of sale walk in business is a PA, and can be protected as such, mostly due to the harm caused by the inevitable confrontations that would result from segregated eating areas.
My issue is with contracted services for specific events that are contrary to the moral code of the supplier of the service.
You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?
if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.
Freedom of religion is, and unless you can show an actual harm caused by it in these cases, it outweighs another persons right to free commerce. Mostly because the government then has to inflict harm on the first party to force either compliance or submission.
Who was harmed when blacks couldn't eat at the Woolworth's counter? Who is harmed when an interracial couple is denied service or a Jewish couple? Why are they deserving of protections gays are not?
The counter thing was again, a symptom of systemic economic and political discrimination. Plus, I don't deny a point of sale walk in business is a PA, and can be protected as such, mostly due to the harm caused by the inevitable confrontations that would result from segregated eating areas.
My issue is with contracted services for specific events that are contrary to the moral code of the supplier of the service.
You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?
if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.
Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?
Who was harmed when blacks couldn't eat at the Woolworth's counter? Who is harmed when an interracial couple is denied service or a Jewish couple? Why are they deserving of protections gays are not?
The counter thing was again, a symptom of systemic economic and political discrimination. Plus, I don't deny a point of sale walk in business is a PA, and can be protected as such, mostly due to the harm caused by the inevitable confrontations that would result from segregated eating areas.
My issue is with contracted services for specific events that are contrary to the moral code of the supplier of the service.
You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?
if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.
Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?
I already stated that if the discrimination is systemic, i.e. a majority of bakers in an area won't cater to gay weddings, then government has compelling interest, because there is actual harm.
The counter thing was again, a symptom of systemic economic and political discrimination. Plus, I don't deny a point of sale walk in business is a PA, and can be protected as such, mostly due to the harm caused by the inevitable confrontations that would result from segregated eating areas.
My issue is with contracted services for specific events that are contrary to the moral code of the supplier of the service.
You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?
if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.
Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?
I already stated that if the discrimination is systemic, i.e. a majority of bakers in an area won't cater to gay weddings, then government has compelling interest, because there is actual harm.
So we need a new government agency under your "plan" to monitor and ensure there are enough bakers, florists and photographers in a given area so that a gay will have someplace to purchase these items?
And then we're still back to some people get to be bigots and some don't...based solely on the type of business they go in to?
Yeah, that's so much simpler than nobody gets to discriminate.
