If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Clementine]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

Being the first makes people famous. For that reason alone it will happen

Almost 3 years since Obergefell.

When you going to get busy on those lawsuits so you can be the first legally able to marry your sister wife?

Why the need to sue?

I thought you were for marriage equality?

 

[Silhouette]

The distinction with the Muslim was that his ride didn't ask him to brew the booze for him and pour it down his throat. If the ride had asked that, the Muslim would've won.

 

[Pop23]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pop23]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

Obviously you

 

[Pop23]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we need to post the video again?

 

[Pop23]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

He doesn’t make same sex cakes. Never has, never will. The product is unavailable to all, no matter who wants it. Male/Female, Straight/gay/fluid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Agree or Disagree?

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

Obviously you

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man


Not I, I know that above is based on the sex of the couples.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

We already have liberals discriminating against Republicans. Remember the designers who said they'd refuse to sell clothes to Melania?

Companies are not discriminating against gays, they just don't want to participate in certain functions. Artists all have the right to refuse to use their talent to create certain things. Some refuse to do anything for NRA, such as printing programs or making cakes for them. Some liberals refuse to offer any services to any Republican functions. Some restaurants have denied service to military. The left only bitches when it's a Republican or Christian. Anyone else can do as they please without being attacked.

Companies do not refuse to sell goods that are already made to people. They just don't want to feel personally involved in something they disagree with due to religion or other reasons.

No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. The left defends them despite their insistence that their religions does not allow them to associate with certain people.

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

Obviously you

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man


Not I, I know that above is based on the sex of the couples.


.>>>>

He has a policy. Exactly which sex is this policy base on?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just so you know:

#1 Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws. So designers are covered in all 50 states for not selling products to the wife of the President (or Presidential candidate).

#2 The NRA is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and in some states an age, sexual orientation, marital statues, or military status - so they are not covered under public accommodation laws.

#3 Military Services IS covered by Public Accommodation laws in approximately 18 states under Public Accommodation laws so violations should be reported to the responsible state agency.

#4 Muslims LOST their argument when Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota refused service to customers denying them for (a) having a dog - including service dogs, or (b) having alcohol in their possession, or (c) smelling of alcohol.


.>>>>

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

Obviously you

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man


Not I, I know that above is based on the sex of the couples.


.>>>>

He has a policy. Exactly which sex is this policy base on?

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

The sex of the couples that are customers.


>>>>

 

[Mr Natural]

If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays …

Then what's the point in being a Christian?

 

[Pop23]

Same sex is not a religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity

Sorry bout that

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

Obviously you

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man


Not I, I know that above is based on the sex of the couples.


.>>>>

He has a policy. Exactly which sex is this policy base on?

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

The sex of the couples that are customers.


>>>>

And he doesn’t bake same sex wedding cakes for any of the above.

 

[Seawytch]

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

Since you're not a Christian, I don't expect you to know this… But when God commanded the Israelites to not intermarry, it had nothing to do with skin color. It was always about not marrying someone of a different religion, namely the people in neighboring nations who were worshiping false gods and committing heinous crimes.

In fact, in the very passage that you quoted, just a few verses before (which you left out) it says the reason why… Here, I will post it for you:

Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods;​

It doesn't matter what some racists say, because anyone who has studied the Bible, and anyone who knows God can easily disprove their claims. Again, the Bible clearly states that God does not look at outer appearance, but at our heart. And as it says in Galatians 3:28, there is no different races, genders, or classes of people in God's eyes… We are all equal in Christ.

You seem to not want to accept or concede that, because maybe you don't like the idea that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.

You don't get to decide someone else's sincerely held religious beliefs.

You seem not to want to accept that racists are just as sure that the bible supports their position as you are that it supports yours.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

Is not based on sex? Who knew.


.>>>>

Obviously you

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man


Not I, I know that above is based on the sex of the couples.


.>>>>

He has a policy. Exactly which sex is this policy base on?

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

The sex of the couples that are customers.


>>>>

And he doesn’t bake same sex wedding cakes for any of the above.

Of course he wouldn't be selling a wedding cake to man/man or woman/woman customers of they were man/woman. That should be obvious.

But he does make man/woman wedding cakes, thereby classifying who he will sell wedding cakes to based on the sex composition of the customers.



.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Obviously you

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man


Not I, I know that above is based on the sex of the couples.


.>>>>

He has a policy. Exactly which sex is this policy base on?

Man/Woman
Woman/Woman
Man/Man

The sex of the couples that are customers.


>>>>

And he doesn’t bake same sex wedding cakes for any of the above.

Of course he wouldn't be selling a wedding cake to man/man or woman/woman customers of they were man/woman. That should be obvious.

But he does make man/woman wedding cakes, thereby classifying who he will sell wedding cakes to based on the sex composition of the customers.



.>>>>

He makes wedding cakes, regardless of sex, regardless of sexuality.

It’s OK if he doesn’t offer a specific product as long as he excludes all from it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, fuck everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly fucking shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

The objective truth is that thinking that the definition of marriage can be changed to give pedophiles the right to marry children- because it was changed to include gays- is fucking idiotic. The law is the objective truth at any point in time- right or wrong, agree or disagree- it reigns supreme. Your objective truth comes from some cosmic horseshit that the voices in your head are telling you is real. We here in the real world understand that changing the law-changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is a far cry from changing it to include pedophiles .

 

[WorldWatcher]

He makes wedding cakes, regardless of sex, regardless of sexuality.

It’s OK if he doesn’t offer a specific product as long as he excludes all from it.

No, he doesn't make wedding cakes regardless of sex. He specifically admits he uses sex as a criteria in providing his goods and services when it comes to one of his normal business offerings - wedding cakes.

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.



.>>>>