If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Seawytch]

And what religion is okay with paganism and divorce but not gay marriage?

Are there bakeries that will bake cakes for pagan ceremonies and divorces, that won't do it for Gay Marriage?

They claim they are Christian. I’d like to se the Christian Bible where Jesus condemns gays marrying but is totally cool with divorce and following other gods.

They are bigots. It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[dblack]

OP is a false premise.
The SCOTUS determined that failing to bake a gake for a faggot orgy is NOT discrimination.

The OP does not rely on the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a general question.

No, it's a false analogy.

Christians are not discriminating against gays. It's a false analogy.

In debate class, you'd be sent to the back of the room to start over.

"1. Podunk Community College should not require a freshman writing course. Harvard does not require a freshman writing course and the students there get along just fine without it.
False Analogy. It is false because the two items do not have strong enough similarities to predict that what happens in one will happen in the other."
Faulty Logic

PS..you don't get to just assert any stupid thing you like, and then say "my statement is based on nothing!" and expect any sort of serious consideration. You come off as a fruitcake who thinks he's being clever, when all you're really doing is pointing out to everybody your inability to reason.

I'm making no analogy. I'm presenting a hypothetical. I'm sorry if it confused you.

 

[koshergrl]

OP is a false premise.
The SCOTUS determined that failing to bake a gake for a faggot orgy is NOT discrimination.

The OP does not rely on the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a general question.

No, it's a false analogy.

Christians are not discriminating against gays. It's a false analogy.

In debate class, you'd be sent to the back of the room to start over.

"1. Podunk Community College should not require a freshman writing course. Harvard does not require a freshman writing course and the students there get along just fine without it.
False Analogy. It is false because the two items do not have strong enough similarities to predict that what happens in one will happen in the other."
Faulty Logic

PS..you don't get to just assert any stupid thing you like, and then say "my statement is based on nothing!" and expect any sort of serious consideration. You come off as a fruitcake who thinks he's being clever, when all you're really doing is pointing out to everybody your inability to reason.

I'm making no analogy. I'm presenting a hypothetical. I'm sorry if it confused you.

I'm not confused.
If you are presenting a *hypothetical* then you deliberately misrepresented it as an accurate analogy..

and it's not, of course.

So either you're disingenuous, or you're using a false analogy.

 

[koshergrl]

The whole point of using false analogies is to push a false narrative, incidentally.

The so-called hypothetical is meant to misrepresent the reality. If the OP hadn't been busted, he would continue to pretend the analogy is valid.

But since he has been busted, he's happy to tell us (afterwards) that it is meant as a hypothetical.

What total garbage the left spews. They need to be locked up.

 

[OldLady]

Bullshit. Discrimination is not allowed. GET USED TO IT.

Its discrimination for a black dry cleaner to refuse to clean and press the Triple K's sheets too.

Should such a business be fined

Since when are racists a protected group?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The free market only works to this effect in areas with a lot of accommodations. "Targeted"? "Premeditated"? This couple probably just looked on the internet for a good bakery or had someone recommend this bakery. I checked this bakery's website a while back and there was nothing in it that would discourage a shopper from patronizing it; quite the contrary. At least this buffoon lost 40% of his business, so I guess at least the "free market" worked this time, although your claim that it was designed to deal with discrimination is ridiculous. It certainly didn't work that way before anti-discrimination laws were passed.

You KNOW that is not true. This was a political attack. Otherwise, they would have just found someone else.

And, yes. He did what is financially to his detriment. Thus, the free market kicked his ass for his religious position. It worked as it should.

The free market gives the individual the choice on where to spend their dollars. Those who do not offer services because of religious beliefs lose market share. Those who openly refuse to provide services to certain people lose market share from not only those certain people, but others who find that refusal to be repugnant and take their business elsewhere.

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." — Milton Friedman

 

[Picaro]

Well yeah, thought control makes me rather uncomfortable? You?

Thought control only works if we let it.

Getting in the mud with them just makes you muddy.
.

I see it as fighting for what I see as the right way to go about doing things, or against what I feel is the wrong way about going about things. Why in the hell did you think I joined this board anyways? Lol.

Fair point!

I think it depends on the point of view. Some want to fight to win. I just want to fix problems, I don't care whose idea it is.
.

The problem is fixed when people stop trying to control other people's thoughts and feelings through the use of the law and lawsuits and destroying their livelihoods. While it may not matter to you right now, if it happened to you, you would have another opinion entirely I'm sure.

Well, there's no one on this board more consistently and virulently anti-PC than me, and that's what PC is all about.

I just don't think that attacking and insulting people who disagree with me is a terribly effective way to change their mind, if that's my goal.

I guess my approach is to let them hang themselves with their own words -- point at it and say, "see?"


.

Many of us know how to distinguish between legitimate posters here to discuss issues, and raving lunatic spammers spreading agendas and bullshit propaganda, sent out from political parties and assorted cults. You seem to think all of these gimps need to be treated with respect and as if they're serious posters or something; they're not, not even remotely. They're marketers. They're here to bully and swarm and shut down any genuine discussions.

 

[dblack]

OP is a false premise.
The SCOTUS determined that failing to bake a gake for a faggot orgy is NOT discrimination.

The OP does not rely on the recent SCOTUS decision. It's a general question.

No, it's a false analogy.

Christians are not discriminating against gays. It's a false analogy.

In debate class, you'd be sent to the back of the room to start over.

"1. Podunk Community College should not require a freshman writing course. Harvard does not require a freshman writing course and the students there get along just fine without it.
False Analogy. It is false because the two items do not have strong enough similarities to predict that what happens in one will happen in the other."
Faulty Logic

PS..you don't get to just assert any stupid thing you like, and then say "my statement is based on nothing!" and expect any sort of serious consideration. You come off as a fruitcake who thinks he's being clever, when all you're really doing is pointing out to everybody your inability to reason.

I'm making no analogy. I'm presenting a hypothetical. I'm sorry if it confused you.

I'm not confused.
If you are presenting a *hypothetical* then you deliberately misrepresented it as an accurate analogy..

and it's not, of course.

So either you're disingenuous, or you're using a false analogy.

I'm making a point about our inconsistent and hypocritical approach to "discrimination". The question could be rephrased as, "Why should religious affiliation be a protected class, but not sexual orientation?". To be clear, I'm opposed to the entire practice of using government to thwart bigotry. It's the wrong tool for the job and it's creating more problems than it's solving, violates more rights than it protects.

 

[OldLady]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

Er.. um.. "anyone" is all inclusive and doesn't require clarification but personally I prefer "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, at any time, for any reason we deem worthwhile".

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings .

LOL, "disregard for their feelings", fuck their feelings and their "dignity", if refusal of service is all it takes to destroy your self-esteem then you've got bigger problems than being refused service and society can't help you.

'Fuck their feelings and their "digntity" '
That's it right there in a nutshell. The law is in place EXACTLY because of people like you. If no one ever taught you any better, the law will.

 

[dblack]

The whole point of using false analogies is to push a false narrative, incidentally.

The so-called hypothetical is meant to misrepresent the reality. If the OP hadn't been busted, he would continue to pretend the analogy is valid.

But since he has been busted, he's happy to tell us (afterwards) that it is meant as a hypothetical.

What total garbage the left spews. They need to be locked up.

Listen, if you think I'm on the left, you aren't paying any attention.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

We all discriminate every day and probably don't know it.

This guy did it for "religious convictions" as I understand it.

My guess is that many people don't frequent his business because of his choice...whereas some of might now do it just to show support.

Is this really about gays ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

Er.. um.. "anyone" is all inclusive and doesn't require clarification but personally I prefer "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, at any time, for any reason we deem worthwhile".

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings .

LOL, "disregard for their feelings", fuck their feelings and their "dignity", if refusal of service is all it takes to destroy your self-esteem then you've got bigger problems than being refused service and society can't help you.

'Fuck their feelings and their "digntity" '
That's it right there in a nutshell. The law is in place EXACTLY because of people like you. If no one ever taught you any better, the law will.

I guess just because you are old does not mean you are necessarily wise.

 

[jc456]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

who discriminated against gays?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I oppose the government suppression of bigotry. It prevents me from identifying the bigots and boycotting their asses. Let them expose themselves!



Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

 

[buckeye45_73]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

My post was an opinion, tangentially in accord with the topic. Real Christian's vis a vis the false prophets and their followers who do not apply the ethos of Christianity in their every day behavior.

Yes, do tell us about "real" Christians......how fun

"real" christians, with the advent of trump, are showing us just how "real" they are.

atheist lefty, do tell.....tell us what a "real" Christian is

 

[Mac1958]

Thought control only works if we let it.

Getting in the mud with them just makes you muddy.
.

I see it as fighting for what I see as the right way to go about doing things, or against what I feel is the wrong way about going about things. Why in the hell did you think I joined this board anyways? Lol.

Fair point!

I think it depends on the point of view. Some want to fight to win. I just want to fix problems, I don't care whose idea it is.
.

The problem is fixed when people stop trying to control other people's thoughts and feelings through the use of the law and lawsuits and destroying their livelihoods. While it may not matter to you right now, if it happened to you, you would have another opinion entirely I'm sure.

Well, there's no one on this board more consistently and virulently anti-PC than me, and that's what PC is all about.

I just don't think that attacking and insulting people who disagree with me is a terribly effective way to change their mind, if that's my goal.

I guess my approach is to let them hang themselves with their own words -- point at it and say, "see?"


.

Many of us know how to distinguish between legitimate posters here to discuss issues, and raving lunatic spammers spreading agendas and bullshit propaganda, sent out from political parties and assorted cults. You seem to think all of these gimps need to be treated with respect and as if they're serious posters or something; they're not, not even remotely. They're marketers. They're here to bully and swarm and shut down any genuine discussions.

It would bother me if I came here for honest, stimulating conversation, but I've long since given up on that for the most part.

So now I just come here to observe stuff (behaviors and tactics) and belch out my opinion here and there.


.

 

[Picaro]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings (and allow heterosexual men and women who believe in the Golden Rule the ability to boycott the establishment, as many of us have done to Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A).

I know this isn't going to fly, but I think it would be helpful to EVERYONE on both sides of this issue to have little signs that can be posted in the window or on the door of a business that indicates if the owner has a strong aversion to gays. Like a Christian fish symbol or .... more positively, for businesses that don't have an aversion, a sign saying We Welcome ALL
Like the We Accept VISA sign. It would be helpful but I'm sure there's got to be something wrong with it, because it's too simple.

Sure, just like your fellow Nazis drew stars on Jewish shop windows, so it would be easy for the thugs to come along later and vandalize them, a fun thing homos love to do, vandalize other's property when they don't get their way. See the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote in california for all the fun things homos ran around doing to people in their sicko fits and diaper wetting dramas.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

'Fuck their feelings and their "digntity" '
That's it right there in a nutshell. The law is in place EXACTLY because of people like you. If no one ever taught you any better, the law will.

Wow.

I can't even.....wow.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

Muslims don't sell pork. Bakeries that sell wedding cakes need to sell them to everyone who wants one.

They will sell them a cake...they just won't take the time to make a unique cake for them......so what is the problem?

 

[Picaro]

Funny how the bigots on the left turn on Christians. What if a gay couple demanded that a Muslem caterer serve pork? Would it be ok if he refused to make it? It ain't about discrimination, it's about freedom. The sodomites have the freedom to go elsewhere and the baker has the freedom to adhere to his religious beliefs. Everyone is happy except lefties who thrive on bigotry and anger and hatred.

They don't go after Muslims. Guess why? Butt raping little boys is a common thing and a long tradition in many parts of Islmao-Land; they're seen as fellow deviants by the homosexuals here. The homos here had NAMLBA in their founding organizations leading councils, after all. It's not rocket science to see the love.