For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[PratchettFan]

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.

You really don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others?

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

I already did, you're too stupid to get it

 

[Freewill]

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

What did Jesus say about those who show noting but disdain for the Bible, what Jesus said, or religion in general but then try and use all three to make some sort of point?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Good idea in an ideal world where everyone is honest about their intentions. As you can see by this board alone, that is NOT the case. These people want to be able to be bigots and not be called out on it. Instead, they are the victims of the gays and the government.

 

[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.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

 

[MarcATL]

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

Getting rid of homophobia is a compelling government interest.

I have no particular dog in this hunt, but how does non-acceptance of a behavioral quirk that affects perhaps 2% of the population reach the level of "compelling government interest"?

Destruction of everything right, good and what America has always stood for is essential to rebuilding the country in the liberal's image. Kinda like tearing down a church to build a whore house.

Unless the church became overrun by whores. Money whores. Remember what Jesus did to them the last time? Yep, he tore down that church.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

Getting rid of homophobia is a compelling government interest.

I have no particular dog in this hunt, but how does non-acceptance of a behavioral quirk that affects perhaps 2% of the population reach the level of "compelling government interest"?

Destruction of everything right, good and what America has always stood for is essential to rebuilding the country in the liberal's image. Kinda like tearing down a church to build a whore house.

Unless the church became overrun by whores. Money whores. Remember what Jesus did to them the last time? Yep, he tore down that church.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Tore it down? LOL He flipped some tables

 

[MarcATL]

How would a baker, florist or photographer know if someone was divorced, a virgin, if they lived with someone? Another epic fail because you didn't THINK before you spewed.

How would they know? Well, in order to register, they have to get the address of the people they are working with, and if the bride and groom have the same address, they'd know they lived together, wouldn't they.

I didn't even hit on divorce, mostly because the bible is all over the map on that subject. But if the baker said, "Hey, weren't you in here two years ago with some other dude?" they'd know.

As far as knowing if someone is a virgin, Well, the bible has that totally covered.


22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Right? I mean, that's totally in the bible, and Jesus didn't change the rules, did he?

Nope. WE changed the rules. Just like we changed the rules on homosexuality.

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

He always does, then he'll wave around some misplaced scripture...thinking he's throwing it back in your face.

I shellacked him on Testaments and Covenants and he's still butt hurt

No you didn't. You haven't explained it. You are a queen in your own head aren't you?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How would a baker, florist or photographer know if someone was divorced, a virgin, if they lived with someone? Another epic fail because you didn't THINK before you spewed.

How would they know? Well, in order to register, they have to get the address of the people they are working with, and if the bride and groom have the same address, they'd know they lived together, wouldn't they.

I didn't even hit on divorce, mostly because the bible is all over the map on that subject. But if the baker said, "Hey, weren't you in here two years ago with some other dude?" they'd know.

As far as knowing if someone is a virgin, Well, the bible has that totally covered.


22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Right? I mean, that's totally in the bible, and Jesus didn't change the rules, did he?

Nope. WE changed the rules. Just like we changed the rules on homosexuality.

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

He always does, then he'll wave around some misplaced scripture...thinking he's throwing it back in your face.

I shellacked him on Testaments and Covenants and he's still butt hurt

No you didn't. You haven't explained it. You are a queen in your own head aren't you?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dude, I have no interest in you or your nonsense. You're just annoying.....and very stupid

 

[ChrisL]

These arguments are the same that so-called "Christian" conservative business owners probably used for an excuse to not serve the blacks. "Let them go to black people stores instead." Ridiculous and unacceptable. The gay people who live in this country are American citizens and entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other American citizen. And YES, the state has every right to set rules and regulations for businesses to follow in their respective states. They say . . . if you go into business to serve the public, then you are expected to serve the public without prejudice. If you cannot manage to treat people as human beings, then don't bother opening a business in this state because you WILL be sued for discriminatory business practices. And if these people won't even bake a cake for a gay couple, can you imagine what would happen if a gay person went to get a job there?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Good idea in an ideal world where everyone is honest about their intentions. As you can see by this board alone, that is NOT the case. These people want to be able to be bigots and not be called out on it. Instead, they are the victims of the gays and the government.

And you wish to force them to stop being bigots, while failing to see that you are also a bigot. Bigotry is not dependent upon which side you are on. The difference between us is that I think you have the right to be a bigot and the government should not be in the business of correcting your thoughts.

In terms of my idea, ask yourself your own reaction if you walk by a bakery and there is a sign in the window that they do not sell wedding cakes for same sex weddings. Will you buy a muffin from them?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Good idea in an ideal world where everyone is honest about their intentions. As you can see by this board alone, that is NOT the case. These people want to be able to be bigots and not be called out on it. Instead, they are the victims of the gays and the government.

And you wish to force them to stop being bigots, while failing to see that you are also a bigot. Bigotry is not dependent upon which side you are on. The difference between us is that I think you have the right to be a bigot and the government should not be in the business of correcting your thoughts.

In terms of my idea, ask yourself your own reaction if you walk by a bakery and there is a sign in the window that they do not sell wedding cakes for same sex weddings. Will you buy a muffin from them?

Yup, these are the same arguments used by the so-called Christians to not serve women and blacks. What a piss poor argument!

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

If you do see it that way, then you are a total moron. If you cannot follow the laws in your state regarding business discrimination, then don't go into business. Nobody is forcing you to serve the public. That is a personal decision.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

ROTFLMBAO @ you speaking for blacks.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[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.

ROTFLMBAO @ you speaking for blacks.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Well, according to them, if you don't like it, you can just shop at black people stores instead. You MUST accept their bigotry when running a business because it is their right to treat you as a second class citizen according to some people here.

 

[martybegan]

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!

How do you know that the lesbian couple wasn't more affluent then the bakers?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".