First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[martybegan]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

 

[Seawytch]

And in related news, we now have a Mississippi man who refused to rent to a biracial married couple on religious grounds.

Mississippi RV park owner evicts interracial couple

This sort of thing was inevitable after the support for religious discrimination against gays.

Which means he's violating Federal Law.

 

[Seawytch]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

Except Public Accommodation laws have never been found to "trample" anyone's rights...despite multiple challenges.

 

[basquebromance]

how dare Nathan Deal insult me & 150 million male gay Americans?!

 

[martybegan]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

Except Public Accommodation laws have never been found to "trample" anyone's rights...despite multiple challenges.

Those courts are wrong.

 

[Slade3200]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

There is so much wrong with your statement... First off, whats my accusation that I can't prove? How can you compare Nazi ideas of infrastructure to your support of legislation that allows businesses to discriminate? That is a completely off base comparison. Lastly, I don't favor gays over bakers or christians, I just favor equality. If they gays owned the bakery and wouldn't serve a christian then I'd object just the same.

 

[martybegan]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

There is so much wrong with your statement... First off, whats my accusation that I can't prove? How can you compare Nazi ideas of infrastructure to your support of legislation that allows businesses to discriminate? That is a completely off base comparison. Lastly, I don't favor gays over bakers or christians, I just favor equality. If they gays owned the bakery and wouldn't serve a christian then I'd object just the same.

You called me a bigot, and a religious nut, and I asked you to prove it, and you weaseled out of it without retracting your statement.

My comparison is valid due to you lumping me in with people who have certain views due to bigotry simply because one of the end results that I want would be agreeable to them. (Actually my views on this wouldn't go far enough, according to them, making your point even more invalid).

Finally, stop hiding behind happy words like "equality". The end result of your equality being enforced is either the baker going out of business, or being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Stop trying to sanitize government coercion you just happen to agree with, and own up to it.

 

[Slade3200]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

There is so much wrong with your statement... First off, whats my accusation that I can't prove? How can you compare Nazi ideas of infrastructure to your support of legislation that allows businesses to discriminate? That is a completely off base comparison. Lastly, I don't favor gays over bakers or christians, I just favor equality. If they gays owned the bakery and wouldn't serve a christian then I'd object just the same.

You called me a bigot, and a religious nut, and I asked you to prove it, and you weaseled out of it without retracting your statement.

My comparison is valid due to you lumping me in with people who have certain views due to bigotry simply because one of the end results that I want would be agreeable to them. (Actually my views on this wouldn't go far enough, according to them, making your point even more invalid).

Finally, stop hiding behind happy words like "equality". The end result of your equality being enforced is either the baker going out of business, or being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Stop trying to sanitize government coercion you just happen to agree with, and own up to it.

Re read bright eyes... I didn't call you a thing, I said you can join them. You comparison is bunk as it compares nazi ideology with infrastructure compared to your agenda of supporting measures that enable discrimination in our businesses. The whole premise of your argument is to allow suck discrimination to be allowed, you are not arguing for a different type of freedom in which discrimination is an unintended result. Nice try though...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then they are not really PA laws, but blanket commerce laws.

You know that's a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy right?


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

Except Public Accommodation laws have never been found to "trample" anyone's rights...despite multiple challenges.

Those courts are wrong.

I see...multiple courts over the last 50 years are wrong, Marty is right. That cinches it.

 

[Dragonlady]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

There is so much wrong with your statement... First off, whats my accusation that I can't prove? How can you compare Nazi ideas of infrastructure to your support of legislation that allows businesses to discriminate? That is a completely off base comparison. Lastly, I don't favor gays over bakers or christians, I just favor equality. If they gays owned the bakery and wouldn't serve a christian then I'd object just the same.

You called me a bigot, and a religious nut, and I asked you to prove it, and you weaseled out of it without retracting your statement.

My comparison is valid due to you lumping me in with people who have certain views due to bigotry simply because one of the end results that I want would be agreeable to them. (Actually my views on this wouldn't go far enough, according to them, making your point even more invalid).

Finally, stop hiding behind happy words like "equality". The end result of your equality being enforced is either the baker going out of business, or being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Stop trying to sanitize government coercion you just happen to agree with, and own up to it.

If I open a business which deals with the public, I must abide by all of the zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and other legislation which governs the operation of the business. I can claim that being required to abide by the laws which govern the operation of my business impugns on my "freedom", and I'll be laughed out of court.

If you are unable to abide by the laws and regulations governing businesses, you need to find another line of work. One which doesn't involve opening a business to the public.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

So when did people become entitled to cakes?

Gee...you're right. Let's shut down ALL the cake bakers.

Gee, that's a bit of a stretch....

You said that no one was entitled to cakes, did you not?

 

[bodecea]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

You might want to talk to The_Human_Being...he claims that majority votes DO trump a person's rights.

 

[JoeB131]

The PA laws were wrongly applied. a Contracted service is not a PA.

And the Kleins are welcome to argue that point... and lose.

 

[Slyhunter]

Soggy you can buy a cake whenever they are for sale.

Anyone can buy a cake.
Nobody should be able to force a baker to make a gay cake.
see the difference.

 

[JoeB131]

hurt feelings are not harm, and government shouldn't be involved in this.

And if proven, that part, the threats, is a separate action unrelated to the PA claims.

We have different opinions about what government should be involved in. THis is something i think they should be, because homophobia is such a pernicious evil it needs to be dealt with.

 

[JoeB131]

Everything flowed from the decision to not sell the cake.

And I guess you thought those death threats and such to the people at Memories Pizza were TERRIBLE, right?

Or did they deserve it because you disagree with them?

why do you keep trying to change the subject. Your argument was that the Klein's didn't do anything to the Cryer-Bowmans than "hurt their feelings".

They clearly did more than that, which is why their penalty was as severe as it was.

For the folks at Memories Pizza, they were the ones who just couldn't keep their hate to themselves. Nope, they had to call up a TV station and say, "Hey, come on down and film us saying we ain't gonna serve no homo weddings even though no one serves Pizza at a wedding other than my Uncle Cleetus when he married his sister, Aunt Jolene!"

Kind of a major difference between the two, don't you think?

 

[Dragonlady]

Soggy you can buy a cake whenever they are for sale.

Anyone can buy a cake.
Nobody should be able to force a baker to make a gay cake.
see the difference.

Cakes are asexual. They are neither gay, nor straight.

If you are in the wedding cake business you can expect to have gay customers, because gay men and women get married too, as is their constitutional right. If you don't want to bake wedding cakes for gays, don't open a bakery which sells wedding cakes.

I wonder if these people sell cakes to adulterers. Adultery is covered in the 10 Commandments. Being gay is not. I would think that anyone sufficiently worried about their immortal soul would be more concerned in participating in the wedding of someone who violated the 10 Commandments, but it seems adulterers get a pass by these right-wing Christians.

 

[martybegan]

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

Majority desires does not trump a person's rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. If you want to trample someone's rights you have to get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the States to agree to it.

You led off your previous post with a direct accusation which you cannot prove or back up. You then offer a weaselly equivalence explanation that also falls on its merits. Its like calling me a Nazi because I like interstate highways and Hitler wanted autobahns to be constructed.

Your last statement is the crux of the issue I have with progressives. You only consider reasons YOU agree with as valid, thus you side with the gay couple over the baker not on the merits of each argument, but because you don't like the bakers, and thus, fuck them.

There is so much wrong with your statement... First off, whats my accusation that I can't prove? How can you compare Nazi ideas of infrastructure to your support of legislation that allows businesses to discriminate? That is a completely off base comparison. Lastly, I don't favor gays over bakers or christians, I just favor equality. If they gays owned the bakery and wouldn't serve a christian then I'd object just the same.

You called me a bigot, and a religious nut, and I asked you to prove it, and you weaseled out of it without retracting your statement.

My comparison is valid due to you lumping me in with people who have certain views due to bigotry simply because one of the end results that I want would be agreeable to them. (Actually my views on this wouldn't go far enough, according to them, making your point even more invalid).

Finally, stop hiding behind happy words like "equality". The end result of your equality being enforced is either the baker going out of business, or being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Stop trying to sanitize government coercion you just happen to agree with, and own up to it.

Re read bright eyes... I didn't call you a thing, I said you can join them. You comparison is bunk as it compares nazi ideology with infrastructure compared to your agenda of supporting measures that enable discrimination in our businesses. The whole premise of your argument is to allow suck discrimination to be allowed, you are not arguing for a different type of freedom in which discrimination is an unintended result. Nice try though...

You were implying if I look, like a duck, walk like a duck, and act like a duck..... Own up to your accusation, and your inability to back it up.

My argument is that government cannot ruin someone, even if you consider it discrimination, when they only real result is hurt feelings.

 

[martybegan]

Then they are not really PA laws, but blanket commerce laws.

You know that's a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy right?


>>>>

Actually, it's more an implication that words are supposed to mean things.