If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[Doc1]

a Muslim or Orthodox Jewish photographer could be sued for refusing to take pictures of young girls in bikinis and ballet outfits, a doctor could be sued for declining to perform an elective abortion (i.e., an abortion not done for health reasons and not done in the aftermath of rape or incest, but purely for the mother's and/or the father's convenience),

I have addressed those scenarios already. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Of course you view yourself as the final arbiter on all things.

 

[mikegriffith1]

UNEQUAL TREATMENT"? You mean like gay couples driving many miles from their own cities and towns to target Christian vendors for lawsuits? You keep ignoring the targeting aspect. Targeting one group of bakers because of their religious beliefs is not only discrimination but also bigoted and hateful.

NO You and others keep manufacturing this alleged targeting. Bigoted, BS!

Oh, so the Iowa gay couple that drove 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to ask the Mennonite-owned bistro to host their gay wedding weren't engaging in targeting? Really? Really? There were numerous venues in Des Moines, where the gay couple lived, that even advertised for hosting gay weddings. So, uh, why'd this gay couple drive all the way to the little town of Grimes to ask a Mennonite couple to host their gay wedding in the couple's bistro chapel?

Basically, you dismiss any scenario that involves declination of services if the declination is based on a moral code that you reject. If you ever take a logic or critical thinking class, you'll learn that that's called inconsistency and selectivity.

 

[Doc1]

UNEQUAL TREATMENT"? You mean like gay couples driving many miles from their own cities and towns to target Christian vendors for lawsuits? You keep ignoring the targeting aspect. Targeting one group of bakers because of their religious beliefs is not only discrimination but also bigoted and hateful.

NO You and others keep manufacturing this alleged targeting. Bigoted, BS!

Oh, so the Iowa gay couple that drove 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to ask the Mennonite-owned bistro to host their gay wedding weren't engaging in targeting? Really? Really? There were numerous venues in Des Moines, where the gay couple lived, that even advertised for hosting gay weddings. So, uh, why'd this gay couple drive all the way to the little town of Grimes to ask a Mennonite couple to host their gay wedding in the couple's bistro chapel?

Des Moines has a large homosexual population.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The narrow focus on businesses offering all their services to everyone is a dog that just won't hunt. That tunnel-vision argument simply ignores the context of the cases under discussion and compares apples to oranges.

A restaurant cannot decline to serve a gay couple a meal because eating a meal is a basic human function and need common to all people. Ditto for declining lodging or medical care. But declining to service a gay wedding is not even close to denying anyone a basic human need.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

gun shops could be sued for refusing to sell guns to anyone under the age of 25 (even if they sincerely believed that selling guns to people under 25 was dangerous)

Oh please. How much more horseshit are you going to pull out of your pie hole? I actually don't know the answer to that but I'm going to call another false equivalency logical fallacy because people buying guns are not covered by any law against discrimination.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

painters could be sued for refusing to do paint a nude portrait, towns could be sued for refusing to allow porn peddlers to open a porn shop or for refusing to issue business permits for prostitution establishments, Muslim florists could be used for refusing to bring flowers to a swinger party. Of course, you dismiss all such points because you don't like their implications.

Yes I dismiss it because it is fucking idiotic

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The narrow focus on businesses offering all their services to everyone is a dog that just won't hunt. That tunnel-vision argument simply ignores the context of the cases under discussion and compares apples to oranges.

A restaurant cannot decline to serve a gay couple a meal because eating a meal is a basic human function and need common to all people. Ditto for declining lodging or medical care. But declining to service a gay wedding is not even close to denying anyone a basic human need.

It is still discrimination no matter hard to the right you try to spin it.

 

[Syriusly]

You don't have to worry about losing your ability to think. You are a right winger, after all, and you can't lose what you don't have.

First of all, I'm not a right winger, I've never publically stated my political allegiance, if anything, I'd say I'm more of a constitutionalist, as I believe there are inherent flaws in both parties. However, all of that is gone, you have reformed me, and I thank you for your generosity in showing me how my thinking was flawed. I have turned full circle and am now a proud member of the democratic party, and I think we should destroy individuality. We should all live in harmony and joy and be one with each other.

Let's stop all of this partisan bickering and see that, in order to reach true happiness, we must all come together on the same page, and we must all support the right of individuals to marry whomever they want, and that, for everyone to be equal, there.must be no person who makes more money than anyone else. We must strive for unity and equilibrium.

Again, thank you for your kindness and insight!



Clinton 2020!

If that's how you truly feel, you will never make it as a liberal. Since you are no longer a right winger, you should find out what liberals are really all about. What you were told as a RWNJ is nowhere near accurate.

Well, no, I listen to a lot of talk radio, both on the right and left side of the spectrum. I'd say my assessment that those on the right are evil and want to destroy the country is pretty spot on, according to all of the liberal talk radio I've listened to.

What I've learned, in my recent transformation is that, all of the problems in this country really stem from individuality. As long as we have people allowed to do their own thing, have their own dreams, desires, and goals, it will inherently intrude on the dreams and goals of others. Free will, left unchecked, will ultimately tear this country apart. You can see it in the discussions on this very forum. The ability for people to have their own thoughts and opinions will ultimately only lead to dissention and division.

If we could find a way to make people think the same, harmony will be achieved, and then we shall finally have peace.

As long as we have differing opinions, we will always argue, and we will never come together.

Clinton 2020!

Again, you're expecting the imagenary librul that the right has made up to scare right wing children. Since you claim to be a new liberal, you should at least make an effort to determine reality instead of hanging to the lies you listened to for so long. Otherwise, you're still just a dumb RWNJ who is confused.

Lol, listen, the left peddles as many lies as the right, neither side is immune to that. All I want is for people to live their lives as free from government meddling as possible.

I'm small government minded, because I think government has gotten too big and has intruded into too many areas of our lives.

How about we do what the constitution says? Government at the federal level can do what the constitution says it can do, then anything else rests with the states.

You do realize that every lawsuit, every claim against a 'Christian' for denying gay's services- is because of a state law- right?

Not a single federal law involved.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Irrelevant %$(^&$% and I explained why. The fact that you can't understand or accept my reasoning is not my problem

No, you did not "explain" anything. Sorry, Charlie, but by YOUR definition of "discrimination," if a couple hired a Muslim photographer to come take pictures of their 8-year-old daughter's birthday party and it turned out that it was a pool party and the girls were all wearing skimpy bathing suits, the Muslim photographer could get sued for declining to take photos of the birthday girl and her friends while they played and celebrated in those skimpy bathing suits.

The core problem is your bigotry and intolerance. Conservatives don't bash famous conservatives for dining at Starbucks, but liberals will bash any fellow liberal who patronizes any business known to be owned by conservatives. For example, liberals recently bashed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for the horrible crime of eating at a Chick-Fil-A restaurant, to the point that Dorsey felt compelled to "apologize" for eating there! Are you kidding me? And you guys talk about "tolerance" and "inclusion"? Phew, what a joke. You guys are the most bigoted, intolerant bunch on the planet.

Similarly, conservatives haven't called for boycotts of Starbucks nor tried to get Starbuck franchise licenses revoked, but liberals have tried to do these things to Chick-Fil-A.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Irrelevant %$(^&$% and I explained why. The fact that you can't understand or accept my reasoning is not my problem

No, you did not "explain" anything. Sorry, Charlie, but by YOUR definition of "discrimination," if a couple hired a Muslim photographer to come take pictures of their 8-year-old daughter's birthday party and it turned out that it was a pool party and the girls were all wearing skimpy bathing suits, the Muslim photographer could get sued for declining to take photos of the birthday girl and her friends while they played and celebrated in those skimpy bathing suits.

The core problem is your bigotry and intolerance. Conservatives don't bash famous conservatives for dining at Starbucks, but liberals will bash any fellow liberal who patronizes any business known to be owned by conservatives. For example, liberals recently bashed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for the horrible crime of eating at a Chick-Fil-A restaurant, to the point that Dorsey felt compelled to "apologize" for eating there! Are you kidding me? And you guys talk about "tolerance" and "inclusion"? Phew, what a joke. You guys are the most bigoted, intolerant bunch on the planet.

Similarly, conservatives haven't called for boycotts of Starbucks nor tried to get Starbuck franchise licenses revoked, but liberals have tried to do these things to Chick-Fil-A.

Holy shit dude!! Sounds like you're having a major meltdown !! My definition of religious freedom is the ability to openly and freely practice and preach your faith. Period. No one is stopping these photographers or bakers from doing that. Baking a cake is not "participating in the gay wedding" That is horseshit!! If that Muslim photographer were to be sued, it would not be for discrimination so that scenario has nothing to do with these other cases .

Your second paragraph is just senseless blather coming from the voices in your head. You're just throwing as much dung at the wall that you can spit up and hope that something sticks. You are dismissed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all, I'm not a right winger, I've never publically stated my political allegiance, if anything, I'd say I'm more of a constitutionalist, as I believe there are inherent flaws in both parties. However, all of that is gone, you have reformed me, and I thank you for your generosity in showing me how my thinking was flawed. I have turned full circle and am now a proud member of the democratic party, and I think we should destroy individuality. We should all live in harmony and joy and be one with each other.

Let's stop all of this partisan bickering and see that, in order to reach true happiness, we must all come together on the same page, and we must all support the right of individuals to marry whomever they want, and that, for everyone to be equal, there.must be no person who makes more money than anyone else. We must strive for unity and equilibrium.

Again, thank you for your kindness and insight!



Clinton 2020!

If that's how you truly feel, you will never make it as a liberal. Since you are no longer a right winger, you should find out what liberals are really all about. What you were told as a RWNJ is nowhere near accurate.

Well, no, I listen to a lot of talk radio, both on the right and left side of the spectrum. I'd say my assessment that those on the right are evil and want to destroy the country is pretty spot on, according to all of the liberal talk radio I've listened to.

What I've learned, in my recent transformation is that, all of the problems in this country really stem from individuality. As long as we have people allowed to do their own thing, have their own dreams, desires, and goals, it will inherently intrude on the dreams and goals of others. Free will, left unchecked, will ultimately tear this country apart. You can see it in the discussions on this very forum. The ability for people to have their own thoughts and opinions will ultimately only lead to dissention and division.

If we could find a way to make people think the same, harmony will be achieved, and then we shall finally have peace.

As long as we have differing opinions, we will always argue, and we will never come together.

Clinton 2020!

Again, you're expecting the imagenary librul that the right has made up to scare right wing children. Since you claim to be a new liberal, you should at least make an effort to determine reality instead of hanging to the lies you listened to for so long. Otherwise, you're still just a dumb RWNJ who is confused.

Lol, listen, the left peddles as many lies as the right, neither side is immune to that. All I want is for people to live their lives as free from government meddling as possible.

I'm small government minded, because I think government has gotten too big and has intruded into too many areas of our lives.

How about we do what the constitution says? Government at the federal level can do what the constitution says it can do, then anything else rests with the states.

Okay. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the constitutionality of public accommodation laws. They found them to be constitutional on numerous occasions. Segregationist even tried the "religious freedom" angle. It didn't fly.

Ok then, so then we can have gay owned businesses making cakes with anti gay Bible verses, Muslim butchers processing pork products, and anti gun stationary stores printing pro gun materials, right?

Even though I believe forcing a business to do something against their religion is against the constitutional religious protections, I'll concede that, if the supreme court ruled that PA laws are constitutional, then there should never be a business that refuses anyone if the services requested goes against the personal or moral views of the business.

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all, I'm not a right winger, I've never publically stated my political allegiance, if anything, I'd say I'm more of a constitutionalist, as I believe there are inherent flaws in both parties. However, all of that is gone, you have reformed me, and I thank you for your generosity in showing me how my thinking was flawed. I have turned full circle and am now a proud member of the democratic party, and I think we should destroy individuality. We should all live in harmony and joy and be one with each other.

Let's stop all of this partisan bickering and see that, in order to reach true happiness, we must all come together on the same page, and we must all support the right of individuals to marry whomever they want, and that, for everyone to be equal, there.must be no person who makes more money than anyone else. We must strive for unity and equilibrium.

Again, thank you for your kindness and insight!



Clinton 2020!

If that's how you truly feel, you will never make it as a liberal. Since you are no longer a right winger, you should find out what liberals are really all about. What you were told as a RWNJ is nowhere near accurate.

Well, no, I listen to a lot of talk radio, both on the right and left side of the spectrum. I'd say my assessment that those on the right are evil and want to destroy the country is pretty spot on, according to all of the liberal talk radio I've listened to.

What I've learned, in my recent transformation is that, all of the problems in this country really stem from individuality. As long as we have people allowed to do their own thing, have their own dreams, desires, and goals, it will inherently intrude on the dreams and goals of others. Free will, left unchecked, will ultimately tear this country apart. You can see it in the discussions on this very forum. The ability for people to have their own thoughts and opinions will ultimately only lead to dissention and division.

If we could find a way to make people think the same, harmony will be achieved, and then we shall finally have peace.

As long as we have differing opinions, we will always argue, and we will never come together.

Clinton 2020!

Again, you're expecting the imagenary librul that the right has made up to scare right wing children. Since you claim to be a new liberal, you should at least make an effort to determine reality instead of hanging to the lies you listened to for so long. Otherwise, you're still just a dumb RWNJ who is confused.

Lol, listen, the left peddles as many lies as the right, neither side is immune to that. All I want is for people to live their lives as free from government meddling as possible.

I'm small government minded, because I think government has gotten too big and has intruded into too many areas of our lives.

How about we do what the constitution says? Government at the federal level can do what the constitution says it can do, then anything else rests with the states.

So you condemn the government interfering with a woman's choices aboout her own body, and all the massive tax giveaways for the rich at the expense of the poor. Good for you.

Abortion is murder, murder is against the law. I know some dont believe that, but a lot of people believe life begins at conception.

As far as giveaways to the rich, what are they? Tax breaks for businesses in a country that has very high corporate taxes? Or rich people who pay more in taxes than the rest of the country combined?

I say flat tax or consumption tax. Get rid of this horrible multi tiered system and just go flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate, no matter how much you make. No loopholes, no tax breaks.

 

[Leo123]

Gays have every right to challenge bias. The problem is, defining the bias. In the case of the Baker, bias was found AGAINST the Baker and the decision was reversed. Look, there is no 3rd sex so.....claiming bias against a non-existing group will be based on BELIEF.....Just like religion is based on BELIEF. There is no provable, scientific proof of any 3rd sex.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Notice that according to liberals, it's not enough that in both of the cases under discussion, the Christian vendors were willing to provide all but one of their services to gays

Irrelevant . It is still discrimination

Yes, you must comply to the fullest!

I bet a lot of people can't wait to take advantage of this new freedom! The ability to force a business to do anything you want! Yes!!!!

Folks, grab all your hogs and head on down to the nearest Muslim butcher and tell him to get going, or head on down to your local Baker owned by gays and have them make cakes that talk about homosexuality being a sin. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that i can't think of but I'm sure people can be creative. The cool part about it, the business can't say no! If they do, you can sue them and force them to shut down!!

Talk about freedom!

 

[ThisIsMe]

How? How is it "discrimination" when you are only asking for the service because you want to sue the vendor for denying it, and when you can easily and quickly obtain that service elsewhere?

I have been all through this horseshit with people like you too many times. How the fuck do you know that they can "easily and quickly obtain that service elsewhere?" It depends on geography . Maybe there is only one bakery that is conveniently located

But that is beside the point. The fact is that even if there was another baker next door, they were still inconvenienced, and possible humiliated and embarrassed. They are receiving UNEQUAL TREATMENT and that is DISCRIMINATION. And you assertion that they just want to sue is ignorant and bigoted bovine excrement

They got their feelings hurt....and so they feel entitled to ruin someone's life over it, rather than having some pride and self respect. They wanted to punish that evil business for having a thought that didn't agree with theirs.

Here's a thought, not everyone will agree with you, so what, if that ruffled your feathers, the problem is not with the business, the problem is with the customer.

Again, I find it simply amazing that people get their feelings hurt, and decide they want to ruin a business, and possibly the lives of a family. What about the children of that Bakery who had to close their doors. Did anyone ever consider what will happen to them? What happens if they lose their home and get thrust out onto the street, because the family no longer can make the money they used to?

 

[ThisIsMe]

In your world, when someone goes into any kind of business, they forfeit their First Amendment right of freedom of religion if that right conflicts with the *desires* of any gay person

IN my world people like you have a twisted view of what freedom of religion is.

Because in your world, religious people don't have freedoms, right? Since you probably dont believe the way they do, you feel they shouldn't have any protections under the law.

That's ok, what goes around comes around. One day an issue will arise where people want protections of their own, but they won't be there, because of the very things we are discussing right now.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok then, so then we can have gay owned businesses making cakes with anti gay Bible verses, Muslim butchers processing pork products

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I'm sure that you don't . The gay guys who wanted a cake just wanted a fucking cake. They did not ask for any pro gay message on it.

But the Muslim butcher is the epitome of idiocy. Muslim butchers do not provide pork to anyone so it is not discrimination . That is like saying that a sushi restaurant could be sued for not serving Italian food. Is it remotely possible that you are so fucking out to lunch that you can't understand that?

 

[Dragonlady]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

What’s your point, because there isn’t one in this post.

The SC ruled in favour of the Colorado Baker because the Tribunal in Colorado discriminated against the baker in their treatment of him in his original hearing. Not because he didn’t bake the cake. The Tribunal displayed prejudice against his beliefs. Had the Tribunal not discriminated against the Christian baker, he would not have won his case for refusing to bake the cake.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

In sure someone will correct me here but, I'm not seeing in the definition of public accomodation where sexual orientation is even considered. Has there been a change that is not published yet?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok then, so then we can have gay owned businesses making cakes with anti gay Bible verses, Muslim butchers processing pork products

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I'm sure that you don't . The gay guys who wanted a cake just wanted a fucking cake. They did not ask for any pro gay message on it.

But the Muslim butcher is the epitome of idiocy. Muslim butchers do not provide pork to anyone so it is not discrimination . That is like saying that a sushi restaurant could be sued for not serving Italian food. Is it remotely possible that you are so fucking out to lunch that you can't understand that?

Not talking about a butcher who runs a meat market, in taking about a butcher that processes animals for people who bring them in. Under your stance, if I bring in 20 hogs and 50 live lobsters, they must process them for me.