I find it very disturbing

[PratchettFan]

You have failed to identify what rights you are giving up

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions, but I don't want to have to give up a word that is important to me so I prefer those be called something else. And since I don't have any religious or moral problems in participating in functions related to gay marriage, that isn't an issue for me either. I have no problem attending gay 'weddings' and have done so.

But just as I don't think a gay florist or baker or caterer should be forced by law to participate in a function at Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think a florist, baker, or caterer who believes gay marriage is wrong should be florced by law to participate in a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I share their religion or convictions in any way. It only means that if we are to have liberty, we cannot be forced to give up our right to be who and what we are and do what we believe to be right for anybody elses benefit, gay, straight, pink, polka dot or whatever.

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you consider it valid for the state to deny you the right to not sell me the bread?

States deny people the right to sell things ALL THE TIME! Welcome to the United Socialist States of the Ridiculous.

 

[Foxfyre]

Like I said, my point went sailing right over you head or you would have seen that I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.

You have failed to identify what rights you are giving up

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. .

Sometimes tradition is just a case of people being wrong for a very long time.

If our founders had mindlessly allied themselves to tradition, we'd be a monarchy.

It has nothing to do with tradition.

" a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage" has everything to do with tradition,

not to mention everything to do with being wrong. Polygamy was marriage as much or more than monogamy for tens of thousands of years.

If you're going to play the 'years' card then you have to concede that legal polygamy should be the 'norm'.

It has never been the norm in America. It is still the norm in some places on Earth.

The definition of marriage has nothing to do with tradition. It defines a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Even in polygamy, each marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. There are just more than one contract involved.

It cannot be redefined as a contractual relationship between two gals or two guys without changing the definition of what marriage is and the purpose for having marriages at all. I don't want to change the definition of marriage. So I won't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first rule in knowing if you're actually looking at a bigot, is that if they have called someone a bigot...

BY DEFINITION, THEY'RE A BIGOT!

Bigot is the new race card and it's already worn out...like the race card

Bigot and racist both have the same meaning they've always had, dingbat.

LOL! No they don't. YOU CAN'T HIDE IGNORANCE!

OH! Another concession...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted

You're an IDIOT.

OH! A Reconcession!

You should know that once you've conceded to the standing points, you're not required to re-concede... but it is very sweet of you to do so.

Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Can you make a convincing argument that the God you've created in your own mind, because it happens to appeal to you,

is the one and only true God?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have failed to identify what rights you are giving up

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions, but I don't want to have to give up a word that is important to me so I prefer those be called something else. And since I don't have any religious or moral problems in participating in functions related to gay marriage, that isn't an issue for me either. I have no problem attending gay 'weddings' and have done so.

But just as I don't think a gay florist or baker or caterer should be forced by law to participate in a function at Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think a florist, baker, or caterer who believes gay marriage is wrong should be florced by law to participate in a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I share their religion or convictions in any way. It only means that if we are to have liberty, we cannot be forced to give up our right to be who and what we are and do what we believe to be right for anybody elses benefit, gay, straight, pink, polka dot or whatever.

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

 

[rightwinger]

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

ROFL!

Yes... "Im sorry but you're advocating that I accept the false morality that you represent as truth... therefore I refuse to participate the celebration of falsity as truth..."

Is the same is "I Refuse to serve you, because your skin reflects a darker hue then mine".

ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is ADORABLE![/QUOTE]
I refuse to serve you because I find your sexuality offensive

Same thing

 

[Foxfyre]

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions, but I don't want to have to give up a word that is important to me so I prefer those be called something else. And since I don't have any religious or moral problems in participating in functions related to gay marriage, that isn't an issue for me either. I have no problem attending gay 'weddings' and have done so.

But just as I don't think a gay florist or baker or caterer should be forced by law to participate in a function at Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think a florist, baker, or caterer who believes gay marriage is wrong should be florced by law to participate in a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I share their religion or convictions in any way. It only means that if we are to have liberty, we cannot be forced to give up our right to be who and what we are and do what we believe to be right for anybody elses benefit, gay, straight, pink, polka dot or whatever.

What a pile of shit.

You don't get a choice in this matter. Gay marriage is going to be legal in every state soon.

And yet another point went sailing right over somebody's head didn't it.

I read your posting and got your point. You still don't get to decide.

You don't get to decide what I get to decide.

No, but states do, as is with the recent baker and florist in question.

No. The states don't get to decide my beliefs. opinions, or convictions either. And I hope there are protections in place soon for that baker and florist because right now their unalienable rights are being seriously violated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions, but I don't want to have to give up a word that is important to me so I prefer those be called something else. And since I don't have any religious or moral problems in participating in functions related to gay marriage, that isn't an issue for me either. I have no problem attending gay 'weddings' and have done so.

But just as I don't think a gay florist or baker or caterer should be forced by law to participate in a function at Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think a florist, baker, or caterer who believes gay marriage is wrong should be florced by law to participate in a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I share their religion or convictions in any way. It only means that if we are to have liberty, we cannot be forced to give up our right to be who and what we are and do what we believe to be right for anybody elses benefit, gay, straight, pink, polka dot or whatever.

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

" a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage" has everything to do with tradition,

not to mention everything to do with being wrong. Polygamy was marriage as much or more than monogamy for tens of thousands of years.

ROFLMNAO! NO... it wasn't.

But feel free to provide examples of culture's were based upon individuals marrying in groups...

With that said, your looming concession is duly noted and summarily accepted, in advance.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What a pile of shit.

You don't get a choice in this matter. Gay marriage is going to be legal in every state soon.

And yet another point went sailing right over somebody's head didn't it.

I read your posting and got your point. You still don't get to decide.

You don't get to decide what I get to decide.

No, but states do, as is with the recent baker and florist in question.

No. The states don't get to decide my beliefs. opinions, or convictions either. And I hope there are protections in place soon for that baker and florist because right now their unalienable rights are being seriously violated.

You can have whatever opinion you like, you just can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, so suck it up.

 

[PratchettFan]

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions, but I don't want to have to give up a word that is important to me so I prefer those be called something else. And since I don't have any religious or moral problems in participating in functions related to gay marriage, that isn't an issue for me either. I have no problem attending gay 'weddings' and have done so.

But just as I don't think a gay florist or baker or caterer should be forced by law to participate in a function at Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think a florist, baker, or caterer who believes gay marriage is wrong should be florced by law to participate in a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I share their religion or convictions in any way. It only means that if we are to have liberty, we cannot be forced to give up our right to be who and what we are and do what we believe to be right for anybody elses benefit, gay, straight, pink, polka dot or whatever.

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet another point went sailing right over somebody's head didn't it.

I read your posting and got your point. You still don't get to decide.

You don't get to decide what I get to decide.

No, but states do, as is with the recent baker and florist in question.

No. The states don't get to decide my beliefs. opinions, or convictions either. And I hope there are protections in place soon for that baker and florist because right now their unalienable rights are being seriously violated.

You can have whatever opinion you like, you just can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, so suck it up.

Nobody has said anything about discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Some of you really have trouble grasping a point made don't you.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you consider it valid for the state to deny you the right to not sell me the bread?

States deny people the right to sell things ALL THE TIME! Welcome to the United Socialist States of the Ridiculous.

Not the question.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I read your posting and got your point. You still don't get to decide.

You don't get to decide what I get to decide.

No, but states do, as is with the recent baker and florist in question.

No. The states don't get to decide my beliefs. opinions, or convictions either. And I hope there are protections in place soon for that baker and florist because right now their unalienable rights are being seriously violated.

You can have whatever opinion you like, you just can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, so suck it up.

Nobody has said anything about discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Some of you really have trouble grasping a point made don't you.

I was specifically talking about the florist and the baker, who were recently in the news. They were both guilty of discriminating based on sexual orientation.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't get to decide what I get to decide.

No, but states do, as is with the recent baker and florist in question.

No. The states don't get to decide my beliefs. opinions, or convictions either. And I hope there are protections in place soon for that baker and florist because right now their unalienable rights are being seriously violated.

You can have whatever opinion you like, you just can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, so suck it up.

Nobody has said anything about discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Some of you really have trouble grasping a point made don't you.

I was specifically talking about the florist and the baker, who were recently in the news. They were both guilty of discriminating based on sexual orientation.

No. They were guilty of breaking a law. In my opinion a very wrong law. They were discriminating based on their religious and moral convictions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you consider it valid for the state to deny you the right to not sell me the bread?

States deny people the right to sell things ALL THE TIME! Welcome to the United Socialist States of the Ridiculous.

Not the question.

Yeah it was... And the very reasons that the states deny people the right to sell things, is the exact opposite of the reason that they PA Laws demand that people should be forced to promote that which is FALSE, as TRUTH!

 

[Foxfyre]

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

 

[PratchettFan]

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing.

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?