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.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
You're literally blaming the victims of intolerance for seeking the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Religiously motivated intolerance is neither their fault nor their responsibility.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
You're literally blaming the victims of intolerance for seeking the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Religiously motivated intolerance is neither their fault nor their responsibility.
Having to go to another baker does not make you a victim. Jesus H Christ people need to grow a freaking spine.
Having goods and services denied to you because of your sexual orientation does make you a victim of intolerance. And you're literally blaming the victim.
That's ridiculous. They're not responsible for someone else's intolerance. They are simply seeking to be treated like everyone else. Which is completely reasonable.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
This is an interesting new tactic. With conservatives trying to increase the impact of PA laws beyond their scope to include churches.......apparently to increase opposition to them.
Nope. Churches aren't commerce.
Why does commerce trump free exercise?
Because business isn't an inherent act of faith. And these are generally applicable laws that don't target religion.
It the responsibility of the religious to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. A Buddhist doesn't get hired at a slaughterhouse only to demand they stop killing animals because it violates his religion. Steve Young didn't demand the Superbowl be played on a Saturday because working on a Sunday violated his religion.
Its the responsibility of each religious individual to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. Not society's responsibility to bend itself around whatever religious belief they happen to have.
A Buddhist doesn't WANT to work at a Slaughterhouse or start one. These bakers want to bake cakes, with one exception that does no real harm. I'm sorry, going to another baker isn't harm.
They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else. They aren't asking the bakers to do anything but their jobs. And still, you blame the victims of intolerance, you blame those denied goods and services because of someone *else's* intolerance.
That's ridiculous.
For decades having to bake a cake for a gay wedding never came up. YOU are asking people to change, not the other way around. It would be like changing a flower shop to a butcher and THEN asking the Buddhist to keep working there.
The gays aren't the cause of the conflict. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is a completely reasonable act. The religiously intolerant baker is the source of the conflict. As denying someone a cake because of their sexual orientation is completely unreasonable. And in many states, against the law.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?
It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.
I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.
I think we know those laws would be slapped with an injunction and thrown out by the courts. I am not seeing any major push, in any statehouse, to get churches to follow PA laws. It isn't happening.
Again, just wait. no one expected bakers to be sued for not wanting to work gay weddings. It's in the nature of miserable people to continue to be miserable, and need another target.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't share this grim prediction of what you believe the future holds.
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Having the right to do something and it being right to do it are two different things.
You;re sure?Gay marriage is a separate issue. We are talking about anti-discrimination laws and yes, they are all from legislation. That's how you get laws.You sure about that?The discrimination laws? That's legislation.Were they changed by legislation or court action? In what proportion?
Every state that allows gay marriage allows it because the state legislature passed a law to that effect?
Every application of anti-discrimination laws to LGBT came from specific inclusion by the legislation and not the application of existing laws by a court?
Quick search...
Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.
Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.
I'm sure there are other examples.
THe cases in question aren't from Ohio or Michigan. The PA laws are state laws.
Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?
It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.
I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.
I think we know those laws would be slapped with an injunction and thrown out by the courts. I am not seeing any major push, in any statehouse, to get churches to follow PA laws. It isn't happening.
Again, just wait. no one expected bakers to be sued for not wanting to work gay weddings. It's in the nature of miserable people to continue to be miserable, and need another target.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't share this grim prediction of what you believe the future holds.
We have people being castigated for not calling a pre-op trans-sexual "she" instead of "he". I'm sorry, but we are going the way of the Romans here.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Having the right to do something and it being right to do it are two different things.
Yes. The first is a matter of law and the second a matter of opinion.
It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.
I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.
I think we know those laws would be slapped with an injunction and thrown out by the courts. I am not seeing any major push, in any statehouse, to get churches to follow PA laws. It isn't happening.
Again, just wait. no one expected bakers to be sued for not wanting to work gay weddings. It's in the nature of miserable people to continue to be miserable, and need another target.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't share this grim prediction of what you believe the future holds.
We have people being castigated for not calling a pre-op trans-sexual "she" instead of "he". I'm sorry, but we are going the way of the Romans here.
People were castigated for being homosexuals. People are always being castigated for something. It comes with living in a free society.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Having the right to do something and it being right to do it are two different things.
Yes. The first is a matter of law and the second a matter of opinion.
My opinion on the matter is we are creating to many laws.
A law should be something 99.99% of the people agree to, like murder and rape being bad, not something to force people to kowtow to your moral structure.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
I think we know those laws would be slapped with an injunction and thrown out by the courts. I am not seeing any major push, in any statehouse, to get churches to follow PA laws. It isn't happening.
Again, just wait. no one expected bakers to be sued for not wanting to work gay weddings. It's in the nature of miserable people to continue to be miserable, and need another target.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't share this grim prediction of what you believe the future holds.
We have people being castigated for not calling a pre-op trans-sexual "she" instead of "he". I'm sorry, but we are going the way of the Romans here.
People were castigated for being homosexuals. People are always being castigated for something. It comes with living in a free society.
The difference is progressives run to government to get them to do the dirty work.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Having the right to do something and it being right to do it are two different things.
Yes. The first is a matter of law and the second a matter of opinion.
My opinion on the matter is we are creating to many laws.
A law should be something 99.99% of the people agree to, like murder and rape being bad, not something to force people to kowtow to your moral structure.
You are entitled to your opinion. Other people are entitled to theirs.
Again, just wait. no one expected bakers to be sued for not wanting to work gay weddings. It's in the nature of miserable people to continue to be miserable, and need another target.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't share this grim prediction of what you believe the future holds.
We have people being castigated for not calling a pre-op trans-sexual "she" instead of "he". I'm sorry, but we are going the way of the Romans here.
People were castigated for being homosexuals. People are always being castigated for something. It comes with living in a free society.
The difference is progressives run to government to get them to do the dirty work.
So the pro-life people never try to limit abortion using the government? Please.
You;re sure?Gay marriage is a separate issue. We are talking about anti-discrimination laws and yes, they are all from legislation. That's how you get laws.You sure about that?The discrimination laws? That's legislation.
Every state that allows gay marriage allows it because the state legislature passed a law to that effect?
Every application of anti-discrimination laws to LGBT came from specific inclusion by the legislation and not the application of existing laws by a court?
Quick search...
Ohio Ant- discrimination legislation makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or ancestry.
No mention of sexual orientation.
Michigan Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations, and public service. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has authority to accept complaints based on unlawful consideration of religion, race, color, national origin, arrest record, genetic information, sex, age, height, weight, marital status and disability.
No mention of sexual orientation.
I'm sure there are other examples.
THe cases in question aren't from Ohio or Michigan. The PA laws are state laws.
So basically using the government force over something this stupid is A-OK as long as the people getting the shaft disagree with you.
Got it.
This is an interesting new tactic. With conservatives trying to increase the impact of PA laws beyond their scope to include churches.......apparently to increase opposition to them.
Nope. Churches aren't commerce.
Why does commerce trump free exercise?
Because business isn't an inherent act of faith. And these are generally applicable laws that don't target religion.
It the responsibility of the religious to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. A Buddhist doesn't get hired at a slaughterhouse only to demand they stop killing animals because it violates his religion. Steve Young didn't demand the Superbowl be played on a Saturday because working on a Sunday violated his religion.
Its the responsibility of each religious individual to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. Not society's responsibility to bend itself around whatever religious belief they happen to have.
A Buddhist doesn't WANT to work at a Slaughterhouse or start one. These bakers want to bake cakes, with one exception that does no real harm. I'm sorry, going to another baker isn't harm.
They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else. They aren't asking the bakers to do anything but their jobs. And still, you blame the victims of intolerance, you blame those denied goods and services because of someone *else's* intolerance.
That's ridiculous.
For decades having to bake a cake for a gay wedding never came up. YOU are asking people to change, not the other way around. It would be like changing a flower shop to a butcher and THEN asking the Buddhist to keep working there.
The gays aren't the cause of the conflict. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is a completely reasonable act. The religiously intolerant baker is the source of the conflict. As denying someone a cake because of their sexual orientation is completely unreasonable. And in many states, against the law.
The ones suing over this and their supporters are asking people to go against their moral code or face government sanction.
The litigants are the aggressors in this situation, and are the cause. By simply realizing some people will just not approve of their lifestyle and moving on they can eliminate the conflict.
But that requires them to be the "bigger men" and for progressives that seems to be impossible.
black people hate to be compared to gays but here is another example of how they are similar. Black people know there will always be racist white people just like gay people know there will always be homophobia. I'm sure they hope one day the number of racist and homophobia is lower than it is today but I'm sure they know in the real world it's never going to go away completely. do we view blacks the same way we did in the racist forty's fifty's sixty's and seventy's? No. Racism is no longer mainstream and neither will homophobia some days.I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
