For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

Figures you would quote that crap. Again, government doesn't control us, we are supposed to control government. only a Statist twat such as yourself gets that wrong again and again and again.

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

That's you. You want to punish the gays for being gay because it goes against your religious beliefs. That is the bottom line here. You religious people always have to have a group to oppress. It's happened throughout history. Women, blacks, now gays. I wonder what group will be next??

Not mine, theirs. You keep getting that wrong.

And you want to oppress these religious people, how does that make you better?

Oh right, it's because you think its "fair", so screw them.

 

[ChrisL]

OMG, the gays are ruining my life. They want to be married and they actually EXPECT to be served at stores. My God, the NERVE of those heathens! What an insult to the conservative Christians that they might have to actually serve a gay person!!! Yup, must be the end of the world.

Meltdown achieved.

I think I am going to reward myself with a nice Fresca, or maybe a Caffeine free Diet Dr. pepper.

I was imitating you and your friends. You are all SO upset by the gay people, and you just can't leave them alone and let them live their lives the way THEY see fit. This will NEVER be a truly "free country" with people like you all running away, denying people equality because of your God.

Not my God, their God.

I am upset by people like you who seek validation of your beliefs through forcing others to behave in ways they do not want to, for no good reason. and having your feelings hurt is not a good reason.

Black people were not pissed off because they couldn't sit at a woolworth counter, they were pissed off because the laws created a situation where they were powerless to change the fact they could not sit at the woolworth counter.

The overt noticeable discrimination was a symptom, not a cause.

Too bad, there are still some rotten people in this world who discriminate against others. If this was not the case and we could trust our fellow Americans to do the right thing, there would be no need for such laws, but yes we have to protect minorities against the religious bullies in this country who would gladly force their views that homosexuals are evil upon the rest of us, even though most of do not agree.

So if everyone was JUST LIKE YOU, everything would be OK?

It's a fact that most of the major religions find homosexuality sinful. You can't change that, and people have a right to believe that. They also have a right not to associate with things they do not agree with, as long as they are not 1)government officials or 2) providing something that is necessary or time dependent.

This is America and it is 2015. If people are going to behave like it is the 1950s, then they need a wake up call. We modern day Americans are not going to accept your bigotry anymore!! You've tried it with women, blacks and now the gay people. Gay people should be able to shop and receive services anywhere and not have to worry about asses like you and your friends trying to treat them like second class citizens, when they work, contribute to the economy and pay taxes like any other American citizen. It's shitty, and I can recognize that and the bigotry and hate displayed by the conservative Christians.

 

[JoeB131]

So if everyone was JUST LIKE YOU, everything would be OK?

It's a fact that most of the major religions find homosexuality sinful. You can't change that, and people have a right to believe that. They also have a right not to associate with things they do not agree with, as long as they are not 1)government officials or 2) providing something that is necessary or time dependent.

Most of the major religions call on Witches to be killed.
But we aren't having our weekly witch-burning, so obviously, your "right to believe that" doesn't fly.

They have a right to not associate with things they do not agree with.

Their business- licensed and subsidized by the People and State of Oregon - does not.

 

[ChrisL]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

That's you. You want to punish the gays for being gay because it goes against your religious beliefs. That is the bottom line here. You religious people always have to have a group to oppress. It's happened throughout history. Women, blacks, now gays. I wonder what group will be next??

Not mine, theirs. You keep getting that wrong.

And you want to oppress these religious people, how does that make you better?

Oh right, it's because you think its "fair", so screw them.

Look, you can deny all you like, but your posts belie your claims.

 

[JoeB131]

Not a conservative Christian, a lapsed catholic strict constructional federalist, with libertarian leanings.

Get it right.

Yes, you support the right of those with money to abuse those without money. The Libertarian way.
How dare they use government to fight back and stick up for their rights!

 

[ChrisL]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

That's you. You want to punish the gays for being gay because it goes against your religious beliefs. That is the bottom line here. You religious people always have to have a group to oppress. It's happened throughout history. Women, blacks, now gays. I wonder what group will be next??

Not mine, theirs. You keep getting that wrong.

And you want to oppress these religious people, how does that make you better?

Oh right, it's because you think its "fair", so screw them.

Yeah, these are probably the same "innocent" arguments people like you used to oppress women and black people too when you were forced to serve them and treat them as human beings.

 

[JoeB131]

Law is one thing, basic human decency is another.

It takes a totally depraved mind, soaked thru and thru with hate, vengeance, paranoia, envy and unjustified phony righteousness to agree with the homo couple and the homo judge

So what if it were a black couple and a black judge? Would discriminating on the basis of race still be okay?

What if it was a Jewish Couple and a Jewish Judge?

Public Accommodation laws exist for a good reason. To make sure that everyone has equal access to goods and services.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, I don't see how we can call ourselves a "free country." Because the religious people want to force their beliefs on everyone else, we are certainly NOT a free country. Disgusting.

And you wish to force your beliefs upon them. What is the difference between you?

I do? How so?

I'm not sure you can understand this, but I will give it a try.

You don't know these bakers we have been discussing. You have no idea what their motivations are or what kind of people they are. All you know is they are taking a position you don't like. Yet you have made it clear that you would consider yourself justified to take precisely the same position as they are taking, just directed at something else you don't like. You think they are not justified because you don't like their reasons, but you are justified because you like your reasons. In short, you consider yourself the "good guy", completely ignoring the possibility that they might consider themselves the "good guy". And so, you believe it is right and proper that a law be applied to force these people to do something they think is wrong, while simultaneously denying that that very same law should be applied to you because you shouldn't have to do something you think is wrong. You want your beliefs forced upon them, but you don't want their beliefs forced upon you.

 

[JoeB131]

Then why does government need to be involved if the community handled it?

Because sometimes the community doesn't. or can't.

The Kleins broke the law. They did this multiple times by their own admission. (This couple was just the first that complained.)

Not seeing why you are having a problem with this, given you wingnuts are happy to send poor black people to prison for life for stealing a slice of Pizza.

 

[JoeB131]

And in doing so they trashed the rights of the bakers.

There isn't a 'right" to have a business. You have a business, you have to comply with all the laws that are applicable to businesses.

Because, shit. Why stop at the Homosexuality? Those sanitation laws offend my religious beliefs.

The law itself is sensible, and the Kleins knew what it was. The Kleins had other options.

They could have set up shop in one of the 31 states that doesn't bar discrimiation against gays.

They could have not gone into that line of work to start with.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't see how we can call ourselves a "free country." Because the religious people want to force their beliefs on everyone else, we are certainly NOT a free country. Disgusting.

And you wish to force your beliefs upon them. What is the difference between you?

I do? How so?

I'm not sure you can understand this, but I will give it a try.

You don't know these bakers we have been discussing. You have no idea what their motivations are or what kind of people they are. All you know is they are taking a position you don't like. Yet you have made it clear that you would consider yourself justified to take precisely the same position as they are taking, just directed at something else you don't like. You think they are not justified because you don't like their reasons, but you are justified because you like your reasons. In short, you consider yourself the "good guy", completely ignoring the possibility that they might consider themselves the "good guy". And so, you believe it is right and proper that a law be applied to force these people to do something they think is wrong, while simultaneously denying that that very same law should be applied to you because you shouldn't have to do something you think is wrong. You want your beliefs forced upon them, but you don't want their beliefs forced upon you.

Then they don't have to open a business in that state. Simple. If you cannot bring yourself to treat customers in a fair and equal manner, then don't open up a business where you are expected to serve the public, because the public includes gays, blacks and women. Or, get sued for discrimination.

 

[Alex.]

OMG, the gays are ruining my life. They want to be married and they actually EXPECT to be served at stores. My God, the NERVE of those heathens! What an insult to the conservative Christians that they might have to actually serve a gay person!!! Yup, must be the end of the world.

Meltdown achieved.

I think I am going to reward myself with a nice Fresca, or maybe a Caffeine free Diet Dr. pepper.

I was imitating you and your friends. You are all SO upset by the gay people, and you just can't leave them alone and let them live their lives the way THEY see fit. This will NEVER be a truly "free country" with people like you all running away, denying people equality because of your God.

Not my God, their God.

I am upset by people like you who seek validation of your beliefs through forcing others to behave in ways they do not want to, for no good reason. and having your feelings hurt is not a good reason.

Black people were not pissed off because they couldn't sit at a woolworth counter, they were pissed off because the laws created a situation where they were powerless to change the fact they could not sit at the woolworth counter.

The overt noticeable discrimination was a symptom, not a cause.

Too bad, there are still some rotten people in this world who discriminate against others. If this was not the case and we could trust our fellow Americans to do the right thing, there would be no need for such laws, but yes we have to protect minorities against the religious bullies in this country who would gladly force their views that homosexuals are evil upon the rest of us, even though most of do not agree.

People have a choice to listen or not, there is no need of laws to protect anyone from listening.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't see how we can call ourselves a "free country." Because the religious people want to force their beliefs on everyone else, we are certainly NOT a free country. Disgusting.

And you wish to force your beliefs upon them. What is the difference between you?

I do? How so?

I'm not sure you can understand this, but I will give it a try.

You don't know these bakers we have been discussing. You have no idea what their motivations are or what kind of people they are. All you know is they are taking a position you don't like. Yet you have made it clear that you would consider yourself justified to take precisely the same position as they are taking, just directed at something else you don't like. You think they are not justified because you don't like their reasons, but you are justified because you like your reasons. In short, you consider yourself the "good guy", completely ignoring the possibility that they might consider themselves the "good guy". And so, you believe it is right and proper that a law be applied to force these people to do something they think is wrong, while simultaneously denying that that very same law should be applied to you because you shouldn't have to do something you think is wrong. You want your beliefs forced upon them, but you don't want their beliefs forced upon you.

Expecting a business person to treat his or her customers equally is not forcing my views upon them. Your entire post is nothing but bullshit and poor excuses for discrimination and bigotry. The business owners are NOT the victims here. If they weren't discriminating, they wouldn't have a problem. Their outdated religious beliefs have no place in the secular business world of America.

 

[ChrisL]

We are not a theocracy. We are a secular nation, and our laws are not based on ancient religions. If you are going to discriminate against people in your business dealings, expect a huge backlash.

 

[FJO]

Law is one thing, basic human decency is another.

It takes a totally depraved mind, soaked thru and thru with hate, vengeance, paranoia, envy and unjustified phony righteousness to agree with the homo couple and the homo judge

So what if it were a black couple and a black judge? Would discriminating on the basis of race still be okay?

What if it was a Jewish Couple and a Jewish Judge?

Public Accommodation laws exist for a good reason. To make sure that everyone has equal access to goods and services.

Ruining the lives of a young, industrious, ambitious and decent couple only for their beliefs is wrong and if you have any decency, you know it.

You also know that if a a bake shop owned by homosexuals refused to bake a cake for regular wedding, you would cheer them as heroes. Along with your fellow phonies.

You also know that if the black owners of a bake shop refused to similarly accommodate a white couple, you and your fellow hypocrites would be overjoyed.

You probably would know (I give you credit fr SOME brains) that the above two hypothetical refusals of service have nothing to do with deeply held religious beliefs but undeniable inborn hatred.

 

[PratchettFan]

Because you are running a public accommodation as defined by the law. A Public Accommodation those Lesbians contributed to with their taxes.

Or as a wise man said, 'You didn't build that."

Figures you would quote that crap. Again, government doesn't control us, we are supposed to control government. only a Statist twat such as yourself gets that wrong again and again and again.

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

 

[MarcATL]

Pretty amazing that people who think themselves open minded start discussions with insults. Can't really understand that sort of myopic hubris. Or maybe he does't think himself very open minded, that would make sense.

Your inability to address the point is duly noted. But I'll make is simpler for you.

Why is it okay for "Christians" to ignore some parts of the Bible to make money but not others?

It means one thing brother, that they are not Christians. The Bible, and Jesus himself, speak about self-proclaimed Christians and their likely fate. It's literally prophecy fulfilled that you're witnessing.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

Certainly, they have a right to do that.

But are they right in doing so?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[PratchettFan]

Law is one thing, basic human decency is another.

It takes a totally depraved mind, soaked thru and thru with hate, vengeance, paranoia, envy and unjustified phony righteousness to agree with the homo couple and the homo judge

So what if it were a black couple and a black judge? Would discriminating on the basis of race still be okay?

What if it was a Jewish Couple and a Jewish Judge?

Public Accommodation laws exist for a good reason. To make sure that everyone has equal access to goods and services.

Ruining the lives of a young, industrious, ambitious and decent couple only for their beliefs is wrong and if you have any decency, you know it.

You also know that if a a bake shop owned by homosexuals refused to bake a cake for regular wedding, you would cheer them as heroes. Along with your fellow phonies.

You also know that if the black owners of a bake shop refused to similarly accommodate a white couple, you and your fellow hypocrites would be overjoyed.

You probably would know (I give you credit fr SOME brains) that the above two hypothetical refusals of service have nothing to do with deeply held religious beliefs but undeniable inborn hatred.

If a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a straight wedding, they would be in violation of that law.

 

[MarcATL]

You stumbled out of the gate. Fell flat on your face. Thanks for playing

Actually, I nailed it and you can't come up with a biblical argument to counter..

You should maybe stick with 'I think the ghey is icky". It would be more honest.

Old man, you started out with virgins, living together, divorced and other things a baker wouldn't have any idea of knowing about people. That's a fail. Keep in mind you didn't know the difference between a Covenant and Testament, your lack of Biblical knowledge disqualifies you

Please explain the difference and how it applies to the OP's argument.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk