Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Churches have nothing to do with civil marriage. Churches are and always will be free to discriminate.The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.
It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.
Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.
I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.
Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.
I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.
If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.
Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.
Guess what? That's your opinion, and not everyone agrees with you, and instead of getting in people's faces and demanding that they accept your viewpoint as objective truth . . . MOVE THE FUCK ON AND FIND PEOPLE WHO WANT YOU AROUND.
And never forget the possibility that people dislike you just because you're unpleasant, and your sexuality has nothing to do with it.
I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.
Sounds like failed government policy.My opinion has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, in large metropolitan areas, public accommodation laws protect the bigots while in more rural areas they protect the minorities. In my opinion it's not right that I have to serve the Christian in all 50 states while he only has to serve me in 20. In my opinion, I'd like to see PA laws continue to protect minorities in rural areas while we let Yelp take care of the bigots in metro areas.
And, in real life, everyone loves me and it has nothing to do with my sexuality.
The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.
It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.
What does recognizing the right of LGBTs to legally marry, either in a civil ceremony or in a ceremony conducted by according to the customs of their religious faith, Christian or other, have anything to do with eliminating the rights of those Christian sects who oppose same-sex marriage? You folks still end up having whatever ceremonies and rituals you want. Dance around the altar naked or dress in purple and do back-flips on the church lawn if you wish. And nobody is telling you that you can't have sex, take tax deductions, will your property to whomever you wish.
I wasn't referring to private clubs. There are quite a few public organizations who do allow membership based on race and gender.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.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 crazyI 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.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 othersIf 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.
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.
Public Accommodations: What Is a Private Club? - The Scholarly ... PDFscholarship.law.umt.edu › viewcontent
Including failed government funded education.Sounds like failed government policy.My opinion has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, in large metropolitan areas, public accommodation laws protect the bigots while in more rural areas they protect the minorities. In my opinion it's not right that I have to serve the Christian in all 50 states while he only has to serve me in 20. In my opinion, I'd like to see PA laws continue to protect minorities in rural areas while we let Yelp take care of the bigots in metro areas.
And, in real life, everyone loves me and it has nothing to do with my sexuality.
Your confusedBut as a libertarian , I'm willing to bet that you would have no problem allowing others to force their shit on gays -without any fear of reprisals from the government. Right?LolBecause you and your ilk force your shit on gays all the timeWhy force gay lifestyle on people that want nothing to do with it?
I’m a libertarian, I do no such thing...
That’s called progressivism...Leaving the door open to child marriages, coerced marriages , and incest.The correct solution was to disarm BOTH sides and declare marriage a contractual arrangement that does not, and should not require any type of state permission (license).
I appreciate your desire for fairness, but I haven't forced anyone to think anything. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to influence people, but that's different than using force, or dishonesty, as a certain politically correct group likes to do.
I think PP he has good intentions. I believe he listens and tries to understand my perspective. I also believe he understands where I'm coming from on the the liberty-first perceptive, even if he doesn't agree with it.Notice how PP is trying to deny this “right” to others by using fear and misstatements?
Remind you of anything else?
I hope everyone at least understands that I mean no ill will toward them--that I am not his enemy, even though we disagree.
Sounds like failed government policy.My opinion has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, in large metropolitan areas, public accommodation laws protect the bigots while in more rural areas they protect the minorities. In my opinion it's not right that I have to serve the Christian in all 50 states while he only has to serve me in 20. In my opinion, I'd like to see PA laws continue to protect minorities in rural areas while we let Yelp take care of the bigots in metro areas.
And, in real life, everyone loves me and it has nothing to do with my sexuality.
I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.
The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.
It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.
Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.
Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?
They don't exclude.I wasn't referring to private clubs. There are quite a few public organizations who do allow membership based on race and gender.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.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 crazyI 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.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
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.
Public Accommodations: What Is a Private Club? - The Scholarly ... PDFscholarship.law.umt.edu › viewcontent
Yes. What I am saying is get rid of the laws.I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.
The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.
It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.
Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.
Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?
Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)
Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]
Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
Yes. What I am saying is get rid of the laws.I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.
The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.
It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.
Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.
Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?
Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)
Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]
Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
Let liberty rule and let bigots reveal themselves so we can boycott the fuck out of them while simultaneously taking unnecessary power away from government, which is the instrument of the ruling class.
What I am saying is get rid of the laws.
Let liberty rule and let bigots reveal themselves so we can boycott the fuck out of them while simultaneously taking unnecessary power away from government, which is the instrument of the ruling class.
And that's easy to say where people have many options. What if there is only one and that "whatever" won't serve you?
That's exactly my point, nobody gives a damn about religion, well, there are many out there who don't give a damn about the lifestyle someone chooses either.That isn’t the way it worksI 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.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 othersIf 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.
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.
If you can’t serve all members of the public find another line of work.
No one gives a damn about your religion
What I am saying is get rid of the laws.
Let liberty rule and let bigots reveal themselves so we can boycott the fuck out of them while simultaneously taking unnecessary power away from government, which is the instrument of the ruling class.
And that's easy to say where people have many options. What if there is only one and that "whatever" won't serve you?
I would be just like if there wasn't any of 'whatever'. Like, for example, if there wasn't a grocery store nearby (or if the grocery store nearby wouldn't sell to you), you'd go to another town to get groceries.
Of course these extreme 'what if' scenarios rarely materialize, and don't last long when they do, so it's hard not to see it as a fairly weak excuse for legislation.
