First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[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.

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.

yep.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

The government has ruined people for far less. But they've got nothing on big corporations.

again, the Kleins invited the Cryer-Bowman's to their store for this service, then refused them service illegally on the basis of their sexual orientation, then subjected them to a hate campaign via social media.

THAT'S why they got ruined. The Government didn't get them in trouble,t hey got themselves in trouble. (Or more specifically, the Husband got them in trouble. The poor wife probably just got herself a biblical bitchslap as her husband ruined her dream of having a nice corner bakery.)

 

[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.

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.

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

 

[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.

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

Then he/she is dead wrong.

 

[martybegan]

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.

No, it isn't. You can't use the government to turn everyone into JoeBlow lemmings.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The government has ruined people for far less. But they've got nothing on big corporations.

again, the Kleins invited the Cryer-Bowman's to their store for this service, then refused them service illegally on the basis of their sexual orientation, then subjected them to a hate campaign via social media.

THAT'S why they got ruined. The Government didn't get them in trouble,t hey got themselves in trouble. (Or more specifically, the Husband got them in trouble. The poor wife probably just got herself a biblical bitchslap as her husband ruined her dream of having a nice corner bakery.)

Again, implying domestic violence. Are you currently wacking yourself off while thinking about it, you sick fuck?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

You mean like when laws say "full and equal good and services" that actually means all goods and services the business voluntarily chooses to offer?


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

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.

You mean like when laws say "full and equal good and services" that actually means all goods and services the business voluntarily chooses to offer?


>>>>

Then in that case it really isn't a public accommodation law, its a commerce law.

At least laws like that are textually accurate, and not stretching the concept of a PA to the ends of the Earth.

Still a dumb idea unless some harm can be shown.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

That's why there are courts. To sort out whether laws are good and proper, within the scope of the jurisdiction where they're enact, and are Constitutional. PA laws have passed Constitutional muster time and time again.

You keep minimizing the harm done as "hurt feelings". Southerners argued that blacks were given service. They could sit at the back of the bus, use the "blacks only" fountains, and attend segregated schools. "Separate but equal" was their rallying cry. But time and time again, the courts have indeed said that discrimination, even if no physical harm is done, is illegal. The Courts understand that refusal of service is just the tip of a rather large iceberg, most of which is unseen which does negatively affect the clasis being discriminated against.

I don't hate the bakers, or anyone else who is disrespectful of those who have done them no harm. How you can refusal service to one kind of sinner and not all sinners and then try to claim refusal of service on the grounds of sin? Would they refuse service to someone who had stolen, lied, committed blasphemy? Unless the answer is "Yes", then claiming they don't serve gays because they are sinners is a lie.

Lastly, I have shown you respect and consideration in drafting my reply to you. You respond with cheap insults and an amateur psychiatric diagnosis, based, I gather, on your inability to reasonable refute my points.

Your concession is noted.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

That's why there are courts. To sort out whether laws are good and proper, within the scope of the jurisdiction where they're enact, and are Constitutional. PA laws have passed Constitutional muster time and time again.

You keep minimizing the harm done as "hurt feelings". Southerners argued that blacks were given service. They could sit at the back of the bus, use the "blacks only" fountains, and attend segregated schools. "Separate but equal" was their rallying cry. But time and time again, the courts have indeed said that discrimination, even if no physical harm is done, is illegal. The Courts understand that refusal of service is just the tip of a rather large iceberg, most of which is unseen which does negatively affect the clasis being discriminated against.

I don't hate the bakers, or anyone else who is disrespectful of those who have done them no harm. How you can refusal service to one kind of sinner and not all sinners and then try to claim refusal of service on the grounds of sin? Would they refuse service to someone who had stolen, lied, committed blasphemy? Unless the answer is "Yes", then claiming they don't serve gays because they are sinners is a lie.

Lastly, I have shown you respect and consideration in drafting my reply to you. You respond with cheap insults and an amateur psychiatric diagnosis, based, I gather, on your inability to reasonable refute my points.

Your concession is noted.

Segregation passed "constitutional muster" for decades before being thrown out. Your appeal to the current views of 4 of 8 unlelected lawyers doesn't mean anything.

The visible discrimination was merely a cover for much deeper political and economic disenfranchisement. Separate but equal was never equal. Can you honestly tell me that these couples can't find another baker almost immediately to provide them the service they need? In the case of Jim Crow, even if the surface discrimination showed little or no harm, there hidden discrimination was causing plenty of harm. That level of discrimination simply doesn't exist anymore today.

As for your last statement, it isn't up to me, you or government to decide how a person lives their life, unless there is some actual harm, and then government can get involved. But even then the harm should be removed using the least invasive method possible.

And my cheap insults and such are just icing on the cake. Call it a response to your sides continuous use of "because because because I WANT IT" as justification for using government to get people to live how YOU want them to live. I have plenty of meat in my posts to reply to, and if you can't handle it, then walk away.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

To your last point... The government isn't ruining anybody by requiring they sell their services products without discrimination. If anything the government is increasing their sales and making them more money. It is the bigots "feelings" that YOU are trying to protect

 

[martybegan]

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.

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

Have you any examples of a local health department doing such a thing? On what basis? I would like to hear how kosher or halal butchering would go against the health dept requirements.

 

[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.

Then he/she is dead wrong.

As I said...talk to it. It is quite adamant that it is correct.

 

[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.

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

Then he/she is dead wrong.

As I said...talk to it. It is quite adamant that it is correct.

Why? I have my hands full going over the same points ad nauseum with you, Seawytch, skylar, et al.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

 

[Dragonlady]

Because public commerce requires that your business comply with the anti-discrimination laws.

Refusal of service on moral grounds only applies if you refuse other customers than gays on moral grounds. Do you refuse adulterers, thieves, murders, blasphemes? If not, then it's discrimination not morality.

As a law clerk, I was assigned the job of transferring the liquor license for a notorious strip club located in an otherwise nice middle-class family area. It was also three blocks from my house at a transit transfer corner.

I went to the billing lawyer and asked to have the file given to another clerk. As an elder of my Church, and a volunteer who worked with abused children, not to mention a resident of the neighbourhood, I wanted the place closed.

Basically I was told to suck it up. The owner of the strip club was our largest client and if I wanted to keep my job, I'd better do it. So I went back to my office and did my job.