Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays?

[Iceweasel]

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

So that's your excuse for ramming your leftist agenda down people's throats? We had slavery therefore .....

1. No

2. You're an idiot.

LOL, I made the parrot squawk!

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are so concerned about slavery why would you want a baker to labor against his will like any other slave?

You're more demented than I thought, and that was already a pretty high bar.

A baker who cannot resist the desire to discriminate can get another job. A slave couldn't. Duh.

The bakery (not baker, dumbfuck) has invested a lot of time, money and sweat into the business and doesn't need needle dicks like you trying to ruin them. How about you get another life?

 

[Iceweasel]

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

 

[paperview]

Get up a movement boy, if you feel that strongly.

The GOP should hold up the banner -- maybe put it in their next platform: Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gopher it!

 

[Camp]

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

Your opinions on what is constitutional and what is not is nothing more than opinion. Unless you are a federal judge or are at least able to make a case using case law, your opinion really has no debatable merit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you are so concerned about slavery why would you want a baker to labor against his will like any other slave?

You're more demented than I thought, and that was already a pretty high bar.

A baker who cannot resist the desire to discriminate can get another job. A slave couldn't. Duh.

Slaves refused to labor all the time. They ran away. Then they were caught and punished. Just like these vendors are punished.

You need to write your GOP representatives and urge them to speak out along your lines of reasoning.

Especially when they're up for re-election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

So you're claiming that the states are protecting civil rights that may not necessarily be protected by the Constitution?

Wouldn't that be, ummmm, a tenth Amendment prerogative? You conservatives and your beloved 10th amendment should be championing this, not attacking it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

The biggest sin is being stupid and a shit disturbing idiot.
Any normal person would go to an other store if he/she can't find what they want in the store they started with.
A shit disturbing idiot is too stupid to do so, instead relies on the government to correct an imaginary wrong, just as they rely on government for their food stamps.

Yeah I dont understand the whole problem. If I went to a baker or whatever and he told me he hated Jews and wouldnt deal with me, why would I want to give him my hard earned money and help him make a living?? It's the last thing I'd want. Frankly I'd be happy if people told me that rather than me giving money to anti-semites and not knowing about it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

So you're claiming that the states are protecting civil rights that may not necessarily be protected by the Constitution?

Wouldn't that be, ummmm, a tenth Amendment prerogative? You conservatives and your beloved 10th amendment should be championing this, not attacking it.

Typically muddled and confused response from you.
People have a 1A right to exercise their religious beliefs. The acts are called "Restoration" acts because courts have whittled away at religious rights under the 1A.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

omG, THIS!! ^^ Why the left can't/won't/refuses to understand about this is beyond me. ^ This is tolerance, something bitching leftists know nothing about. Their idea of diversity is a room full people of different races/religions/orientations, etc. all agreeing with each other.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's not the providing of a product...it is being personally involved.

If a photographer believes gay marriage is a sin, the law should not require them to ATTEND a gay marriage and be a participant. Same for a caterer, or a florist. Basically, it is a requirement to be a party to sinful behavior...and that is the definition of restricting freedom of religion.

That is far different from simply "providing a product". If a car dealership refused to sell a gay citizen a car because they were gay, that would be a whole nother story.

Spot on. Unfortunately, the left will never ever comprehend this or how it pertains to the constitution in regards to religious freedom.

 

[OKTexas]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Is making cheap firearms no police, security, or self-defense user would use, but criminals will because they're cheap and disposable condoning crime?

maobama voters need firearms too.

 

[Silhouette]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Serving individual gays is not forbidden by the Bible. Christians are told to reach out to them "making a difference"

Enabling a gay culture to take over a normal one IS expressly forbidden in the Bible. Gravely forbidden. It carries the punishment of eternal damnation for Christians who fail to act in opposition. Marriage is the hub of any culture.

So, to answer the obvious question in the OP: Serving gays in day to day stuff = yes. Participating in a "gay wedding" = no.

Read all of Jude 1 in the New Testament for details.

 

[Iceweasel]

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

So you're claiming that the states are protecting civil rights that may not necessarily be protected by the Constitution?

Wouldn't that be, ummmm, a tenth Amendment prerogative? You conservatives and your beloved 10th amendment should be championing this, not attacking it.

We are defending it, not attacking it and I didn't make your idiotic claim. You are just too fucking stupid to talk to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

So you're claiming that the states are protecting civil rights that may not necessarily be protected by the Constitution?

Wouldn't that be, ummmm, a tenth Amendment prerogative? You conservatives and your beloved 10th amendment should be championing this, not attacking it.

We are defending it, not attacking it and I didn't make your idiotic claim. You are just too fucking stupid to talk to.

You can pretend all you want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Serving individual gays is not forbidden by the Bible. Christians are told to reach out to them "making a difference"

Enabling a gay culture to take over a normal one IS expressly forbidden in the Bible. Gravely forbidden. It carries the punishment of eternal damnation for Christians who fail to act in opposition. Marriage is the hub of any culture.

So, to answer the obvious question in the OP: Serving gays in day to day stuff = yes. Participating in a "gay wedding" = no.

Read all of Jude 1 in the New Testament for details.

Why don't you quote us from Jude 1 where it says expressly that 'gay culture' must be wiped out.

 

[Iceweasel]

You can pretend all you want.

You proved it. You can't understand small words.

 

[Siete]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays?

gay goods ... what department??

 

[Camp]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

You and everyone who agrees with you have every right to make the constitutional rights claim to the people tasked with making that decision, the courts. Until the time a ruling is made in favor of your opinion all you have is an opinion the courts have so far, disagreed with. Up to this point the courts are ruling that your opinion, if and when carried out, is infringing on other peoples constitutional rights.

That's a stupid lie. Those cases ONLY exist when state and local governments have added those accommodation type laws. They did it because the Constitution doesn't go far enough for them.

But I do agree it's time to take the country back from the social re-engineering thugs.

So you're claiming that the states are protecting civil rights that may not necessarily be protected by the Constitution?

Wouldn't that be, ummmm, a tenth Amendment prerogative? You conservatives and your beloved 10th amendment should be championing this, not attacking it.

We are defending it, not attacking it and I didn't make your idiotic claim. You are just too fucking stupid to talk to.

You can pretend all you want.

It is the last resort of the extreme fundamentalist when they have nothing logical, legal or of common sense to argue. They begin quoting from the bible as if because it is their interpretation of something out of the bible, everyone has to adhere to or respect it. People of different beliefs and freedom of religion goes out the window. They believe something so we all must believe it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is Providing A Product For Gays Condoning Gays? Because it seems like if you deny those people the sale just because they are gay you are being JUDGMENTAL. Do not judge or be judged.

Which is the bigger sin?

Serving individual gays is not forbidden by the Bible. Christians are told to reach out to them "making a difference"

Enabling a gay culture to take over a normal one IS expressly forbidden in the Bible. Gravely forbidden. It carries the punishment of eternal damnation for Christians who fail to act in opposition. Marriage is the hub of any culture.

So, to answer the obvious question in the OP: Serving gays in day to day stuff = yes. Participating in a "gay wedding" = no.

Read all of Jude 1 in the New Testament for details.

Why don't you quote us from Jude 1 where it says expressly that 'gay culture' must be wiped out.

It doesn't and you misunderstood.