Kansas: Legalizing Discrimination

[Seawytch]

At the end of the day gay people aren't really hurting anyone (apart from maybe each other a bit) and all of what they do is with conscent. I don't see the problem with letting them do whatever they want within the relms of the law. In my book if you're against Gay Marriage then don't have one.

While I completely agree with this statement, I'd also contend that people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings aren't hurting anyone when they refuse. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and throwing it under the bus in the name of changing social mores (even if its arguably for the better) is a bad idea in my view.

Then repeal all the public accommodation laws, not just the ones to protect "the gays. I shouldn't have to serve Christians or a cripple but the law REQUIRES that I do.

 

[dblack]

At the end of the day gay people aren't really hurting anyone (apart from maybe each other a bit) and all of what they do is with conscent. I don't see the problem with letting them do whatever they want within the relms of the law. In my book if you're against Gay Marriage then don't have one.

While I completely agree with this statement, I'd also contend that people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings aren't hurting anyone when they refuse. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and throwing it under the bus in the name of changing social mores (even if its arguably for the better) is a bad idea in my view.

Then repeal all the public accommodation laws, not just the ones to protect "the gays. I shouldn't have to serve Christians or a cripple but the law REQUIRES that I do.

Yep.

 

[GreenBean]

At the end of the day gay people aren't really hurting anyone (apart from maybe each other a bit) and all of what they do is with conscent. I don't see the problem with letting them do whatever they want within the relms of the law. In my book if you're against Gay Marriage then don't have one.

While I completely agree with this statement, I'd also contend that people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings aren't hurting anyone when they refuse. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and throwing it under the bus in the name of changing social mores (even if its arguably for the better) is a bad idea in my view.

Then repeal all the public accommodation laws, not just the ones to protect "the gays. I shouldn't have to serve Christians or a cripple but the law REQUIRES that I do.

So you're now admitting that Gays are handicapped because of their Mental Issues ?
Perhaps you should apply for a handicapped parking permit

 

[Seawytch]

While I completely agree with this statement, I'd also contend that people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings aren't hurting anyone when they refuse. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and throwing it under the bus in the name of changing social mores (even if its arguably for the better) is a bad idea in my view.

Then repeal all the public accommodation laws, not just the ones to protect "the gays. I shouldn't have to serve Christians or a cripple but the law REQUIRES that I do.

So you're now admitting that Gays are handicapped because of their Mental Issues ?

Perhaps you should apply for a handicapped parking permit

No, but with your reading comprehension level, nowhere your twisted mind goes surprises me.

 

[Silhouette]

So you're now admitting that Gays are handicapped because of their Mental Issues ?

Perhaps you should apply for a handicapped parking permit

No, but with your reading comprehension level, nowhere your twisted mind goes surprises me.

According to Jude 1 in the Bible, christians are supposed to have compassion for homosexuals' plights while refusing to promote what they do as normal, or to allow their mindset to permeate any culture. It turns out you can both be compassionate and firmly opposed to a person's behaviors. Like gently but firmly removing the whole package of cookies a child made a wild impulsive grab for just before dinner. If you remove the package of cookies, do you hate the child? Are you phobic of the child? Are you bigoted towards the child?

No, of course not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At the end of the day gay people aren't really hurting anyone (apart from maybe each other a bit) and all of what they do is with conscent. I don't see the problem with letting them do whatever they want within the relms of the law. In my book if you're against Gay Marriage then don't have one.

While I completely agree with this statement, I'd also contend that people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings aren't hurting anyone when they refuse. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and throwing it under the bus in the name of changing social mores (even if its arguably for the better) is a bad idea in my view.

Actually not.

Public accommodations laws are wise and appropriate because they ensure the integrity of all markets, regardless how small or local, as all markets are interrelated.

 

[Howey]

**snooze**

Time to give up on the troll homophobes.

 

[dblack]

At the end of the day gay people aren't really hurting anyone (apart from maybe each other a bit) and all of what they do is with conscent. I don't see the problem with letting them do whatever they want within the relms of the law. In my book if you're against Gay Marriage then don't have one.

While I completely agree with this statement, I'd also contend that people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings aren't hurting anyone when they refuse. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and throwing it under the bus in the name of changing social mores (even if its arguably for the better) is a bad idea in my view.

Actually not.

Public accommodations laws are wise and appropriate because they ensure the integrity of all markets, regardless how small or local, as all markets are interrelated.

Actually not not.

Public accommodations laws step eerily into the realm of 'thought crimes', wherein our personal preferences and choices of who to associate with are overridden by state mandate. It seems innocuous enough when they preventing people from expressing 'ignorant', bigoted or otherwise unpopular opinions. But one man's bigoted is another's common sense, and we're beginning to see where this kind of legal precedent will lead.

It's not the job of government to engineer a political correct populace. There are ways and means of persuading bigoted people to change their ways that don't invoke state coercion, and we should use those instead.