If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Seawytch]

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

example?

like shoes and shirts or no service?

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

 

[jc456]

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.

in other words, they want complete control of the world.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Because that's not the system you straight folks set up for yourself. You set up civil marriage. Go ahead and change it...for everyone.

 

[jc456]

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

example?

like shoes and shirts or no service?

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

what is it you wish me to read? can't you pull out the piece that is significant to you posting it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nothing "religious" or "hocus-pocus" about it. Just because you aren't bright enough to understand it . . .

Truth and facts are not determined by laws, and they don't change just because you pass a law. If Congress passed a law tomorrow stating that gravity didn't exist, would we all float away into space, or would gravity continue to glue us to the Earth?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

 

[jc456]

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?

Because that's not the system you straight folks set up for yourself. You set up civil marriage. Go ahead and change it...for everyone.

we set up marriage as a male and female, woman man. you show me one definition that says otherwise.

 

[Seawytch]

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

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

Ok, if discrimination is defined by treating someone differently because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc..then all of these organizations that only accept people because of their race or gender must all go away, right? Because anything less would be discrimination.

Public Accommodations: What Is a Private Club? - The Scholarly ... PDFscholarship.law.umt.edu › viewcontent

 

[jc456]

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?

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

and you must exist with people who do not share your ideas. how do you personally deal with them? tell them they don't have the right to exist?

 

[jc456]

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

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

Ok, if discrimination is defined by treating someone differently because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc..then all of these organizations that only accept people because of their race or gender must all go away, right? Because anything less would be discrimination.

Public Accommodations: What Is a Private Club? - The Scholarly ... PDFscholarship.law.umt.edu › viewcontent

again, please pull out the abstract you wish us to see.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

 

[Silhouette]

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

and you must exist with people who do not share your ideas. how do you personally deal with them? tell them they don't have the right to exist?

No, he simply tells them they don't have a right to their own ideas and thoughts about their truth; because he believes his LGBT dogma is "The One True Religion" and all others must have their truth exterminated.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Because that's not the system you straight folks set up for yourself. You set up civil marriage. Go ahead and change it...for everyone.

we set up marriage as a male and female, woman man. you show me one definition that says otherwise.

You transferred your religious ideals to the civil and civil law can't discriminate the same way religion can.

You thought you set up marriage so that it didn't include whites marrying blacks. You were wrong about that too...and it took the SCOTUS to point that out then as well.

 

[buttercup]

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

Thank you for conceding that my previous statement was correct. Man-made laws do not constitute actual truth. Secondly, no, only man-made laws are ever evolving. Natural or eternal law does not change. As I said earlier, actual truth has nothing to do with opinions or man-made laws. Anyway, this is getting into a whole new topic.

 

[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?

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

Thank you for conceding that my previous statement was correct. Man-made laws do not constitute actual truth. Secondly, no, only man-made laws are ever evolving. Natural or eternal law does not change. As I said earlier, actual truth has nothing to do with opinions or man-made laws. Anyway, this is getting into a whole new topic.

Leave me alone

 

[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.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

as I stated in an earlier post. i have no issue with civil unions.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Of course they are not always correct. Often it is a mater of opinion and interpretation. The law is ever evolving. Do you think your "truth " is always correct. You can believe in a higher power, but when it come to the earthly affairs of man, it does not exist for me. That is my truth

and you must exist with people who do not share your ideas. how do you personally deal with them? tell them they don't have the right to exist?

No, that is what you right wingers do to people who you don't approve of.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

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

Ok, if discrimination is defined by treating someone differently because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc..then all of these organizations that only accept people because of their race or gender must all go away, right? Because anything less would be discrimination.

Public Accommodations: What Is a Private Club? - The Scholarly ... PDFscholarship.law.umt.edu › viewcontent

again, please pull out the abstract you wish us to see.

No. It's how you get educated...read. Trust me, I'm doing this for your own good. You may want to go into business someday.