Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[Skull Pilot]

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where are these Christians refusing to serve gays? Please point them out. There arent any. It doesnt exist. It is the "hands up dont shoot" of the LGBT world.

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

Is the government justified in outlawing discrimination by race even if a person claims a religious belief in separation of the races?

 

[martybegan]

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

Again, its not about you, its about how someone else feels. Do you want the government to enforce your moral compass on everyone else under threat of fine/jail/change profession?

 

[PredFan]

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Ok, I see the problem, you jumped in on a discussion and I mistook one left wing nut for another. Let me make it as simple as I can:

Providing a pizza or a cake, or a cab ride to a customer, is not the same as actively getting involved in a ceremony or activity. The key word is "actively". Walk in, order cake, leave with cake, no problem. Walk in, order cake with two plastic men or women on top, demand that it be delivered, problem. Demand that a photographer coordinate the wedding photos, problem.

There is a huge difference and though it may be discrimination, Americans should have their right to practice their faith trump the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Clear?

And who is being held to "actively" participating in a wedding? After all....who brings food to wedding anyways? Isn't the food for the reception? A reception is AFTER the wedding, isn't it? Not part of the wedding, is it?

Since when is a reception not part of the wedding? You people are too ridiculous to talk to.

A caterer does not participate in the wedding, and it's a red herring anyway.

btw, are you conceding at least the the government does have the right to force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't have to go to the event itself?

I wasn't conceding any such thing. I was explaining how participation violates their first amendment rights. The government should not be allowed to force a business owner to serve anyone that they don't want to. But alas, we live in a country where only certain people have rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

Again, its not about you, its about how someone else feels. Do you want the government to enforce your moral compass on everyone else under threat of fine/jail/change profession?

If you open a business you are subject to public accommodation laws.

If you don't like it then don't open a business on only make cakes for your fellow bigots on the side

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In the schizophrenic's mind, they are not mentally ill.
In the homosexaul's mind they are not mentally ill.

Do we build a fantasy world for schizophrenics? No!
Why should we make special laws that create a fantasy world for homosexuals?

So, are you really asserting that homosexuals are mentally ill? Really?

Of course they aren't.

All human behaviors exists on a continuum

Just because a very small percentage prefer the same sex is no big deal there have always and I do mean always been people who are homosexual.

And there always will be.

The single most important justification for denying rights to a particular group of citizens is the ability to prove that their exercise of that right causes sufficient harm to society to warrant denying it.

Homosexuals getting married does not. Homosexuals buying cake does not.

There is no right to harm an innocent... DUMBASS!

Now just so you know... YOU ARE NEVER ENTITLED TO INJURE AN INNOCENT PERSON. FOR ANY REASON. What's more, as a free sovereign it is your SACRED RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT... as in protecting their means to exercise their rights; in BEARING THAT RESPONSIBILITY: YOU SUSTAIN YOUR OWN MEANS TO EXERCISE YOUR OWN RIGHTS.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder which presents as sexual deviancy. The Advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality DENIES THAT SUCH IS A MENTAL DISORDER, which is DELUSIONAL. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ADVISE PEOPLE THAT THAT WHICH IS FALSE IS TRUE. AS SUCH IS INJURIOUS TO THE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE, BECAUSE IT PRECLUDES THEM FROM MAKING SOUND DECISIONS.

Now as an FYI: > IF< you were an American... you'd have known that.

You're disagreeing with me and agreeing with me at the same time.

I think we've found our schizo. lol

Proving once again that you're DELUSIONAL!

 

[PredFan]

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

Ok, I see the problem, you jumped in on a discussion and I mistook one left wing nut for another. Let me make it as simple as I can:

Providing a pizza or a cake, or a cab ride to a customer, is not the same as actively getting involved in a ceremony or activity. The key word is "actively". Walk in, order cake, leave with cake, no problem. Walk in, order cake with two plastic men or women on top, demand that it be delivered, problem. Demand that a photographer coordinate the wedding photos, problem.

There is a huge difference and though it may be discrimination, Americans should have their right to practice their faith trump the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Clear?

And who is being held to "actively" participating in a wedding? After all....who brings food to wedding anyways? Isn't the food for the reception? A reception is AFTER the wedding, isn't it? Not part of the wedding, is it?

Since when is a reception not part of the wedding? You people are too ridiculous to talk to.

A caterer does not participate in the wedding, and it's a red herring anyway.

btw, are you conceding at least the the government does have the right to force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't have to go to the event itself?

I wasn't conceding any such thing. I was explaining how participation violates their first amendment rights. The government should not be allowed to force a business owner to serve anyone that they don't want to. But alas, we live in a country where only certain people have rights.

I agree with you on principle.

I just have a problem with the bogus religious argument

 

[martybegan]

The LGBT world expects no answer other than yes. Their like spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word NO.

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

Is the government justified in outlawing discrimination by race even if a person claims a religious belief in separation of the races?

If there is a compelling interest, yes. During the Jim Crow era a large percentage of the population was economically disadvantaged by government mandated and privately accepted discrimination in all facets of society.

In this day an age, we would get 1-2 businesses saying "they don't want to serve X", The majority would not take advantage of the ability to discriminate. If 1 or 2 bakers decide they don't want to serve gays, blacks, Furries, or guys named Hal, the market is such that the denied party has an easy remedy, i.e., going to someone else.

This was not possible in the Jim Crow south due to the government mandated nature of the discrimination.

 

[PredFan]

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

Again, its not about you, its about how someone else feels. Do you want the government to enforce your moral compass on everyone else under threat of fine/jail/change profession?

If you open a business you are subject to public accommodation laws.

If you don't like it then don't open a business on only make cakes for your fellow bigots on the side

Of course you are but you shouldn't be. That's why lovers of freedom and liberty are trying to get rid of these oppressive and tyrannical laws the left wing nutters imposed on everyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How dare American citizens expect to be treated as regular American citizens.....gays are so UPPITY!

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

 

[Anathema]

Like the Puritans did.

That's what they were trying to do

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And you lose if your only argument is, I don't like taxes.

ROFLMNAO!

Well it's your straw, so I guess you can shape it up to appear as any argument you feel you can sell. I'm only pointing out that your argument is not truthful... that your argument is a deceit, created from the straw you conjured from your own deluded mind.

See how that works?

 

[PredFan]

Ok, I see the problem, you jumped in on a discussion and I mistook one left wing nut for another. Let me make it as simple as I can:

Providing a pizza or a cake, or a cab ride to a customer, is not the same as actively getting involved in a ceremony or activity. The key word is "actively". Walk in, order cake, leave with cake, no problem. Walk in, order cake with two plastic men or women on top, demand that it be delivered, problem. Demand that a photographer coordinate the wedding photos, problem.

There is a huge difference and though it may be discrimination, Americans should have their right to practice their faith trump the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Clear?

And who is being held to "actively" participating in a wedding? After all....who brings food to wedding anyways? Isn't the food for the reception? A reception is AFTER the wedding, isn't it? Not part of the wedding, is it?

Since when is a reception not part of the wedding? You people are too ridiculous to talk to.

A caterer does not participate in the wedding, and it's a red herring anyway.

btw, are you conceding at least the the government does have the right to force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't have to go to the event itself?

I wasn't conceding any such thing. I was explaining how participation violates their first amendment rights. The government should not be allowed to force a business owner to serve anyone that they don't want to. But alas, we live in a country where only certain people have rights.

I agree with you on principle.

I just have a problem with the bogus religious argument

You are assuming that it's bogus. That is an assumption that is not yours to make.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

I wouldn't care if a business owner randomly told people who walked into his shop that he wouldn't serve them

No soup for you!

I am just calling out the bogus nature of the religious argument where some sins are OK and don't force the baker to participate in them and the gay sin does.

It's utter bullshit

 

[martybegan]

it's not the place of government to decide who's religion and beliefs take precedence, unless there is a clear and overwhelming interest in the government doing so.

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

Again, its not about you, its about how someone else feels. Do you want the government to enforce your moral compass on everyone else under threat of fine/jail/change profession?

If you open a business you are subject to public accommodation laws.

If you don't like it then don't open a business on only make cakes for your fellow bigots on the side

That shouldn't have to be a choice. Society can handle a baker that doesn't want to cater to a gay wedding.

Also, the whole "all businesses are public accommodations" motif is bull. Hell, Memories pizza acknowledged they would sell equally to anyone who walked in the door, they just didn't want to cater a specific event, and they had to go into hiding.

 

[martybegan]

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

Again, not your call, and not government's call.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't defend hypocrisy.

And I see it as no different than businesses having to serve all races and sexes.

its not about you defending hypocrisy, its about government being able to punish it without an overwhelming compelling reason.

A gay couple having to find another baker is not a compelling reason, especially since the majority of bakers would serve them.

I don't see baking a cake and getting paid for it as punishment.

Again, its not about you, its about how someone else feels. Do you want the government to enforce your moral compass on everyone else under threat of fine/jail/change profession?

If you open a business you are subject to public accommodation laws.

If you don't like it then don't open a business on only make cakes for your fellow bigots on the side

That shouldn't have to be a choice. Society can handle a baker that doesn't want to cater to a gay wedding.

Also, the whole "all businesses are public accommodations" motif is bull. Hell, Memories pizza acknowledged they would sell equally to anyone who walked in the door, they just didn't want to cater a specific event, and they had to go into hiding.

So a gay guy eating a pizza after having anal sex with a another man is OK but 2 gay guys and a few friends eating a pizza after a ceremony that the baker did not attend is a sin?

And you can't see the utter stupidity of that argument?

 

[PredFan]

Spoiled brats is a better description. Regular people accept no for an answer. Faggots expect a yes answer to whatever they ask.

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

What you are suggesting would lead to having to take a complete survey of your customers. The cut off should be "active participation". Just selling the cake or pizza or flowers should be fine and I'm sure is just fine. No one should be forced to participate.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no problem with people refusing service.

I think the "against my religion" argument is bullshit because the same baker who loathes the gay sinner will bake a cake for an adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton etc and have no problem doing it as those sinners are somehow not making the baker violate his religion and only the gay sinners are.

No one is talking about selling baked goods to people who come into their bakery. That premise is a flaming red herring. (Pun INTENDED)

The issue here is being FORCED to PARTICIPATE IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEBAUCHERY.

And THAT is where your argument fails Skull, as it is not true, that the same baker that refuses to cater the pretense of a marriage by the sexually deviant, would NOT cater a function celebrating "adulterer, a rapist, a killer, a glutton, etc".

I have yet to see a fat guy saying a baker refused to bake a cake for him because of "religious" reasons even though baking the cake for the fat guy promotes one of the 7 deadly sins.

So? Perhaps the Christian bakers should take that into consideration. But you would opposed that anyway right?

No I wouldn't

But if one is going to use the religious argument then they better be 100% using it for all people who sin or they open themselves up for a discrimination law suit.

Again, not your call, and not government's call.

Fine but if people want to call them bigots and protest them I'm OK with it.