If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Cecilie1200]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, same sex marriage is not legal nationwide? 70% of Americans do not approve of it ? OK My bad

Man made laws do not constitute actual truth. Truth is what it is, it has absolutely nothing to do with human opinion or man-made laws.

That seems to smack of some religious hokus- pokus . Now I understand you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is quite an unhinged rant. What the hell do you mean by "my lifestyle"?? You don't know me and don't presume to. Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. If a person is treated differently that another person based on characteristic, that is discrimination. Maybe there is not other baker that has what they want. Maybe there is no other baker at all. Maybe it is just an annoyance to go elsewhere. Think about how you would feel if it were you. People like you make me fucking crazy

I genuinly empathize with those who are victims of discrimination.

What I ask them to do is let freedom take priority to the greatest extent possible, and find a solution that preserves freedom above all else.

In the situation at hand, I am asking gay couples to let bigoted assholes have their liberty. I don't like it either, but there is a much more important primciple I wish to preserve. I am asking you to trust liberty and have faith in people.

It takes courage to put faith in people and trust that, for the most part, they will treat others with respect and dignity in the marketplace. Applying government force is the antithesis of faith in people and the enemy of liberty. Using force to get what you want allow others to use force to get what they want, until liberty is dead.

If gay couples would demonstrate their support for liberty and openly support the right of the bigot baker to refuse service, many, including the bigot baker, will appreciate it, and many bigots, including the baker, could have a change of heart and recognize their error.

It happened to me. I am living proof that liberty is reciprocated. Liberty is powerful.

That is rather idealistic and I'm not sure how realistic it is.

Ok I might be open to allowing bigoted shop owners discriminate, although it is against my principles. But where does it stop?

What about the bigoted employer who fires someone after seeing pictures of their same sex wedding on social media?

What about the bigoted land lord who wont rent that apartment to the gay couple that they really wanted?

What about the bigots who-right now in Texas- are pursuing litigation to get the City of Huston to stop providing employee benefits to spouses of a gay worker claiming that it goes beyond the intent of Obergefell?

Get the picture? If the Baker can discriminate, who then cannot?

What about them? You say, "Where does it stop?" as though it's a given that there's just naturally some point at which the government correctly abridges the right to freedom of association, and as though it's a given that ONLY the government can be counted on to improve society.

The bigoted employer who fires people over pictures on their social media - does a gay person WANT to work for someone like that, anyway? I mean, honestly. That particular employer is going to fire the gay employee the instant he finds out, no matter what. I wouldn't want to work for someone that capricious, nosy, and short-sighted, and I can't imagine a gay person would. How is legally forcing that employer to lie about his bigotry helping anyone, really? You think he won't just manufacture a reason to fire that employee the first chance he gets, or make him/her so miserable he/she quits? At least if he fires you for something not related to the job, you can claim unemployment. And when word gets around - and it WILL get around - that he's the type of guy who snoops around in your personal life and then drags it into work, he won't be able to get hire a quality employee to save his life, and a lot of his customers are going to find him distasteful, as well.

What about the bigoted landlord, assuming you can find someone renting real estate who's asinine enough to disdain gay tenants? Same question applies. Do you really want something as important as your housing subject to the whim of a short-sighted, unbusinesslike bigot who hates you? Is having the government force him to lie about it going to really improve anything? Would you not be happier living someplace where this was not a factor, and letting all of social media know that that apartment complex is a REALLY bad choice? I've had landlords who were utter dicks, and it didn't take more than a couple of months before I hated the house and couldn't get away fast enough.

The City of Houston is not a private entity. It's a government entity. So when you say, "If bakers can discriminate, who cannot?" that would be who cannot: the government.

 

[jc456]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

marriage is defined.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, it's you who is trying to redefine discrimination, by trying to label what the Christians believe as hate, when it is not hate.

I did not accuse anybody of hate. Hate is what happens between your own two ears. I told you several times before, I am concerned about how people are treated. I showed the way in which religious liberty- which used to mean the freedom to worship openly , and lead your life according to the tenants of your faith, has come to mean -for some the freedom to judge others for how they live. They have weaponized religion to further their political agenda.

 

[buttercup]

That seems to smack of some religious hokus- pokus . Now I understand you.

So you believe that man-made laws constitute actual truth? What I said is demonstrably true. Are all laws correct? Please answer with a yes or no. If you say yes, you're contradicting yourself, because before the law changed on marriage, I'm sure you denounced it and fought against the law as it was, claiming it was an unjust law.

So I'll ask you again, are all laws correct or not?

 

[jc456]

Actually, it's you who is trying to redefine discrimination, by trying to label what the Christians believe as hate, when it is not hate.

I did not accuse anybody of hate. Hate is what happens between your own two ears. I told you several times before, I am concerned about how people are treated. I showed the way in which religious liberty- which used to mean the freedom to worship openly , and lead your life according to the tenants of your faith, has come to mean -for some the freedom to judge others for how they live. They have weaponized religion to further their political agenda.

so you want everyone to be you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let me ask you this, so, now we are at the point where bakers (or any business) has to concede their personal values to accommodate the wishes of someone else. How far of a stretch is it to envision that, if a business refuses to buy supplies from a company, because that company supports things that go against their values.

I've got news for you . You are talking about an entirely different matter. It is a false equivalency logical fallacy. It is one thing to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business. It is quite another thing to boycott a business. That happens all of the time and it is legal. It is idiotic to think that you can be told who to patronize.

 

[Seawytch]

So who gets to discriminate? There’s only one propane company and one honey dipper that services where I live. Should they be able to discriminate? The only gas station? Grocery store?

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

 

[jc456]

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

so who is the male? why do you wish to be a male anyway?

 

[Seawytch]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

You really don't see the big picture, do you?

Oh please. You think you have no freedom because you can no longer have separate water fountains?

 

[jc456]

Let me ask you this, so, now we are at the point where bakers (or any business) has to concede their personal values to accommodate the wishes of someone else. How far of a stretch is it to envision that, if a business refuses to buy supplies from a company, because that company supports things that go against their values.

I've got news for you . You are talking about an entirely different matter. It is a false equivalency logical fallacy. It is one thing to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business. It is quite another thing to boycott a business. That happens all of the time and it is legal. It is idiotic to think that you can be told who to patronize.

it's also pretty funny to think you can be told who to serve eh?

 

[Seawytch]

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

so who is the male? why do you wish to be a male anyway?

So the answer is "yes", rubber utensils are a danger to you.

 

[jc456]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

You really don't see the big picture, do you?

Oh please. You think you have no freedom because you can no longer have separate water fountains?

who had separate water fountains and why?

 

[jc456]

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

Both are. My wife and I were both brides. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Do you hurt yourself with plastic spoons?

so who is the male? why do you wish to be a male anyway?

So the answer is "yes", rubber utensils are a danger to you.

don't understand your answer. there wasn't a yes or no question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why force gay lifestyle on people that want nothing to do with it?

Because you and your ilk force your shit on gays all the time

Really? How? Please name us something comparable to the Masterpiece case, or really any of the behavior of gay activists.

 

[Seawytch]

So who gets to discriminate? There’s only one propane company and one honey dipper that services where I live. Should they be able to discriminate? The only gas station? Grocery store?

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

Out of my ass? It appears the cake is up your ass:

The history of the wedding cake

The history of the wedding cake
It hasn't always been flowers and ribbons. Once upon a time, rather than being eaten, cakes were thrown at the bride as a symbol of fertility, says Catherine Gee.

History of the Wedding Cake

Today’s wedding cake has evolved out of many traditions. It is believed that the wedding cake began in Ancient Rome where wheat bread was broken over the bride’s head symbolizing fertility and good fortune.

Then there is the Cake AND other Wedding celebrations, all historically ABOUT THE COUPLES ABILITY TO PROCREATE - FROM A FEMINIST WEBSITE!

Wedding Traditions that Want to Get You Pregnant

1. Getting Married in June: Marrying in June was a way to honor Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage and childbirth. Marrying in June also meant pregnant mom could still work the fields and babies born in warmer months were more likely to survive. To read more about why couples marry in June click here.

2. The Flower Girl and Ring Bearer: These little cherubs are miniature bobble heads of the bride and groom. The fact that they are children represents the newlyweds’ future youngsters, because, you know, they’re expected to look like mom and dad. Hence the identical uniform.

3. Flowers as Decoration: Flower bouquets, boutonnières and centerpieces are not just for décor. The Flower Girl throwing petals everywhere is sort of like magic fertility dust. Flowers are symbols for fertility and…the vagina. Just ask Georgia O’Keefe; she knows what I’m talking about. (I will also admit that flowers were also used as a way to mask everyone’s smell. Deodorant is a modern convenience, when people showered sparsely back in the day the flowers doubled as a B.O. cover up.)

4. Bridal Shower Ribbon Cutting Game: There’s a common bridal shower game where for every ribbon the bride breaks when opening her gifts – a child she shall have. I suppose one could interpret the broken ribbon as her hymen since it’s supposed to be ultimately about getting her pregnant. Wedding > Bride > Virgin > Hymen Breaking > Baby; cuz married sex is supposed to lead to an immediate conception, right? (Bleh.)

5. The Wedding Cake: The wedding cake is not just dessert, it’s a fortuitous sex symbol meant to produce many offspring. The cake dates back to ancient Rome. Ancient cakes baked symbolic fertility grains into an uninspiring carb used to bless the couple. A seventeenth-century French chef sweetened it into the towering confection we know today.

6. Cutting the Cake: That ancient Roman cake was broken over the virginal bride’s head by her husband. This represented her hymen being broken (by him) later that night. The crumbs that fell over her were like Tinker Bell’s dust but instead of blessing her with the power of flight, it was more like blessing her with fertility. Guests would clamber for the fallen floor crumbs so they could get their own prosperous good luck to take home. This is also why we now share the cake with wedding guests. This eventually evolved into the cake cutting performance we see today, which is more about sexual intimacy and nurturing in a weird Freudian way.

7. Putting Wedding Cake Under Your Pillow: Sounds like creating laundry for yourself, but this was a commonly practiced tradition at one time. Female guests would take a slice of wedding cake home, put it under their pillow and sleep over it. It was thought that doing so would bless them with the same fertility bestowed upon the bride. (Why they thought pillow cake would do this is a great mystery.) Letting guests take home a slice stems back to those ancient Roman floor crumbs guests wanted. It was a little slice of superstitious prosperity and fertility to take home. Nowadays, while some guests may make off with butter cream frosting, most just get little tchotchkes as a thank you.

8. Throwing Rice: Throwing rice holds the same meaning as the wedding cake and the flower girl throwing petals. Its purpose is to spread well wishes of prosperity and fertility on the couple. At this point you might be asking yourself – what’s with all this grain and fertility business? All types of grain from barley to rice to wheat translate to prosperity (i.e. wealth) all across the world both physically and metaphorically. Ancient civilizations relied heavily on good harvests, not just to survive but as a type of currency. When harvests experienced bad years, birth rates most likely dropped; hence why they are so correlated. And since women were limited to the home and were considered economically unviable, their value rested on their ability to produce children. Children were only legitimate if consummated in marriage and were part of intricate laws regarding inheritance and social status. It’s a complicated web of social values, but the foundation of it all is food’s nurturing power and it’s associated symbols.

THEN THERE IS MY FAVORITE!

9. The Open Bar: I know what you’re thinking, how could the open bar be guilty of trying to knock up the bride? Well, it’s not the open bar’s fault per se, but there is a historical precedence of booze in relation to fertility. One of the possible explanations for the term honeymoon comes from mead, the honey wine. Mead was drunk by the newlyweds because, like grain, honey was also seen as a fertility and prosperity symbol. It was drunk for typically one month, which was also the length of most honeymoons in Victorian times. It also thought to lower the inhibitions of any nervous newlywed virgins.

YOU GOT SOME SPLAININ TO DO LUCY!

And yet I found information that showed fertility was not what the wedding cake symbolized. It certainly does not today.

Besides, gays aren't infertile. (I had five babies myself)

 

[Seawytch]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

Because queer- lifestylists eat and shit just like everyone else. It isn't a direct-condoning of that which is a new and unique repugnant concept to a Christian: the bastardization of the word "marriage" where children are involved and used to get the benefit of both mother and father. A new contract instead banishes them from that benefit. Christians believe that marriage requires both mother and father as the nuclear family unit where children are always assumed to arrive or be part of; whether or not the rare exception happens.

there is even a need to consummate the marriage. I bet these leftists toads don't even know this. It's what annulled many a marriages.

There is no requirement in Government sanction marriage for consummation of the marriage via sexual contact. But can you imagine if there were and it was left to the State Legislatures to legislate what sexual consummation might be. Would a new Bride be allowed to deny Anal Sex as a way to consummate her Marriage?

it may not be a requirement, but it is used for annulments.

You're confusing religious marriage with civil.

 

[jc456]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

Because queer- lifestylists eat and shit just like everyone else. It isn't a direct-condoning of that which is a new and unique repugnant concept to a Christian: the bastardization of the word "marriage" where children are involved and used to get the benefit of both mother and father. A new contract instead banishes them from that benefit. Christians believe that marriage requires both mother and father as the nuclear family unit where children are always assumed to arrive or be part of; whether or not the rare exception happens.

there is even a need to consummate the marriage. I bet these leftists toads don't even know this. It's what annulled many a marriages.

There is no requirement in Government sanction marriage for consummation of the marriage via sexual contact. But can you imagine if there were and it was left to the State Legislatures to legislate what sexual consummation might be. Would a new Bride be allowed to deny Anal Sex as a way to consummate her Marriage?

it may not be a requirement, but it is used for annulments.

You're confusing religious marriage with civil.

I'm all for civil unions, not marriage. why do you wish to change the definition of marriage? why do you hate heterosexuals so much?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is quite an unhinged rant. What the hell do you mean by "my lifestyle"?? You don't know me and don't presume to. Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. If a person is treated differently that another person based on characteristic, that is discrimination. Maybe there is not other baker that has what they want. Maybe there is no other baker at all. Maybe it is just an annoyance to go elsewhere. Think about how you would feel if it were you. People like you make me fucking crazy

I genuinly empathize with those who are victims of discrimination.

What I ask them to do is let freedom take priority to the greatest extent possible, and find a solution that preserves freedom above all else.

In the situation at hand, I am asking gay couples to let bigoted assholes have their liberty. I don't like it either, but there is a much more important primciple I wish to preserve. I am asking you to trust liberty and have faith in people.

It takes courage to put faith in people and trust that, for the most part, they will treat others with respect and dignity in the marketplace. Applying government force is the antithesis of faith in people and the enemy of liberty. Using force to get what you want allow others to use force to get what they want, until liberty is dead.

If gay couples would demonstrate their support for liberty and openly support the right of the bigot baker to refuse service, many, including the bigot baker, will appreciate it, and many bigots, including the baker, could have a change of heart and recognize their error.

It happened to me. I am living proof that liberty is reciprocated. Liberty is powerful.

That is rather idealistic and I'm not sure how realistic it is.

Ok I might be open to allowing bigoted shop owners discriminate, although it is against my principles. But where does it stop?

What about the bigoted employer who fires someone after seeing pictures of their same sex wedding on social media?

What about the bigoted land lord who wont rent that apartment to the gay couple that they really wanted?

What about the bigots who-right now in Texas- are pursuing litigation to get the City of Huston to stop providing employee benefits to spouses of a gay worker claiming that it goes beyond the intent of Obergefell?

Get the picture? If the Baker can discriminate, who then cannot?

Let me ask this:

Shouldn't employers have the right to decide who they hire or retain?

Do you really want to work for an employer who fires someone for being gay?

Shouldn't the bigoted land lord get to decide how he uses his property and to whom he leases?

Do you really want to live in an apartment owned by a bigot?

But, look what that exposed bigotry does. There's a business opportunity for the non-bigoted, not just because they gay couple needs space, but also people who have learned that their land lord is a bigot.

Liberty is all-powerful. Liberty is the ultimate arbiter of justice.

Liberty exposes the bigot. Liberty also punishes the bigot. The liberty that allowed the bigot to discriminate is the same liberty that makes the bigot penniless. Liberty is the ultimate disinfectant.

You must trust people to do the right thing. We will not let you be homeless. We will not let you be jobless. Many of us will gladly accept your business (no homoerotic pun intended ).

For lack of a better way to put it, Liberty is a god that rewords those who put faith in her.

I will address the City of Houston issue in a separate post.

and yet the left wish to take liberty away.

Leftists fear liberty, because they're convinced that no one but them knows how to use it correctly or morally, and that no one but them WISHES to do so.