LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[Mac-7]

If it's a reserved room not part of the public part of the restaurant? Then yes.

If it's just a group of them sitting in the PA part of the restaurant? then no.

If its impromptu how does the homosexual workers know 90 minutes beforehand?

 

[22lcidw]

I have no doubt the so-called bible-compliant bakery would have baked adulterer Donald Trump's third wedding cake.

Their hatred of gays is not faith-based.

LGBT needs to use sense. They are power hungry. And in bad times they are going to open themselves up to nastiness. All of the gains made will be removed in that scenario. Tyrants have a way of showing their true rainbow colors when fully in control. Bidne would do just that if we were at that point. Why? Because he has been a chameleon of the swamp in his lifetime of sponging as a government politician.

 

[martybegan]

Not in a Jewish Deli instance. They wouldn't even have any on hand to sell at any price. They would first have to be forced to buy pork, in order to have any for sale.

But it's just their view that pork is different than beef. It's all meat. and besides, now we can define pork as beef, and you can't say otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

If its impromptu how does the homosexual workers know 90 minutes beforehand?

The workers shouldn't have a say, it's not their business, they can quit and get another job with no loss of investment on their part.

 

[Marener]

Then go force a jewish deli to make you a ham sandwich.

Actually the baker never refused point of sale cakes, just contracted ones for one specific event against their moral code, but my analogy was just to show the idiocy of your equating SSM with traditional marriage like the two aren't different.

Your analogy still sucks. The Jewish deli doesn’t serve ham. They’re not denying me ham because of who I am, they just don’t serve ham.

The baker makes wedding cakes. They refused to make a cake for a gay couple because of who they were.

 

[Marener]

He was being facetious.

He keeps at it, so I don’t think he’s being facetious. I think he just doesn’t get how stupid the analogy is.

 

[martybegan]

Your analogy still sucks. The Jewish deli doesn’t serve ham. They’re not denying me ham because of who I am, they just don’t serve ham.

The baker makes wedding cakes. They refused to make a cake for a gay couple because of who they were.

Well they should serve ham, because ham is no different than hamburger, because someone said so.

They don't want to participate in something they don't acknowledge as a marriage.

They have already been on record not denying point of sale goods to anyone.

 

[2aguy]

Then go force a jewish deli to make you a ham sandwich.

Actually the baker never refused point of sale cakes, just contracted ones for one specific event against their moral code, but my analogy was just to show the idiocy of your equating SSM with traditional marriage like the two aren't different.

Yep.....they had backed things for those fascists before and never refused any other order.....they just didn't want to bake a wedding cake....

The left wing fascists will not tolerate any dissent...and they will not stop persecuting this guy....

 

[martybegan]

He keeps at it, so I don’t think he’s being facetious. I think he just doesn’t get how stupid the analogy is.

And you don't get it because your SJW betters have programmed you not to recognize inherent conflicts with your own arguments.

Or more simply......Baaaaaaaaaaa.....

 

[Marener]

Well they should serve ham, because ham is no different than hamburger, because someone said so.

They don't want to participate in something they don't acknowledge as a marriage.

They have already been on record not denying point of sale goods to anyone.

But they don’t serve ham because they don’t want to serve ham.

The cake is indistinguishable whether it shows up at a gay wedding or a straight wedding.

Whether they think it’s a marriage or not is irrelevant. The cake doesn’t change that. The cake doesn’t make it a marriage. Neither does their opinion.

 

[Marener]

And you don't get it because your SJW betters have programmed you not to recognize inherent conflicts with your own arguments.

It’s not an inherent conflict, you just don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Again.

And you’ll never admit it because in your mind, all you have to do to win an argument is troll long enough that I give up explaining logic to you.

 

[g5000]

LGBT needs to use sense. They are power hungry.

They are about as power hungry as the lunch counter protesters of the 50s and 60s.

 

[martybegan]

But they don’t serve ham because they don’t want to serve ham.

The cake is indistinguishable whether it shows up at a gay wedding or a straight wedding.

Whether they think it’s a marriage or not is irrelevant. The cake doesn’t change that. The cake doesn’t make it a marriage. Neither does their opinion.

They are being contracted to provide a service specifically for a ceremony they find morally wrong. Free exercise protects them in this case.

It is 100% relevant to them. It is 100% relevant that you support government force against them for no other reason than you hate them for their religious beliefs.

Another prog running to suck some big government dick to get their way.

 

[Independent thinker]

So, what was your position on the baker that did not want to make a cake for the same sex wedding?

It's like this, which is probably what the court will decide:

You cannot discriminate by refusing to serve a protected class BUT you should not be forced to use your artistic or similar professional talents to make or design something that is against your religious beliefs. If a cake baker refuses to sell a cake in their store to, let's say, a gay couple, that is discrimination. But, if that gay couple wants the baker to make or design a cake and the requested design is clearly against their religious values, the baker should not be forced to do this. The baker should also be able to prove that this is actually against their religious beliefs and that they aren't just simply claiming that in order to discriminate. In other words, you can't just be claiming this exemption when you can't prove you actually have those religious beliefs.

To expand further: In most cases I cannot see an establishment being able to discriminate against a party due to protected classes and that goes both ways. Say a restaurant provides services for a large group but those services do not include artistic talents, merely providing food and drinks, so, Christians would not be able to discriminate against LGBQT+ and vice versa.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not an inherent conflict, you just don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Again.

And you’ll never admit it because in your mind, all you have to do to win an argument is troll long enough that I give up explaining logic to you.

Just because YOU see SSM and traditional marriage as equal doesn't make them equal. SSM is a new concept less than 3-4 decades old.

The real cocksucker move on your part is using government force against those who disagree with you to ruin them.

 

[Marener]

They are being contracted to provide a service specifically for a ceremony they find morally wrong. Free exercise protects them in this case.

It is 100% relevant to them. It is 100% relevant that you support government force against them for no other reason than you hate them for their religious beliefs.

Another prog running to suck some big government dick to get their way.

That’s nice.

They can continue living their moral little life. Baking a cake doesn’t change that. Why do people think they need to enforce their morals on others?

 

[g5000]

It's like this, which is probably what the court will decide:

You cannot discriminate by refusing to serve a protected class BUT you should not be forced to use your artistic or similar professional talents to make or desed thsign something that is against your religious beliefs. If a cake baker refuses to sell a cake in their store to, let's say, a gay couple, that is discrimination. But, if that gay couple wants the baker to make or design a cake and the requested design is clearly against their religious values, the baker should not be forced to do this. The baker should also be able to prove that this is actually against their religious beliefs and that they aren't just simply claiming that in order to discriminate. In other words, you can't just be claiming this exemption when you can't prove you actually have those religious beliefs.

To expand further: In most cases I cannot see an establishment being able to discriminate against a party due to protected classes and that goes both ways. Say a restaurant provides services for a large group but those services do not include artistic talents, merely providing food and drinks, so, Christians would not be able to discriminate against LGBQT+ and vice versa.

The bigots of yesteryear used the Bible to defend segregation and laws against interracial marriage.

This isn't about religion. It's about hate.

Same shit, different decade.

 

[martybegan]

They are about as power hungry as the lunch counter protesters of the 50s and 60s.

That was an actual PA, and those lunch counters were segregated by local law.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Unless you’re from India, according to Canon Shooter in which case you’re a glutton.

Except that the fat cow said it was due to her diet.

So, yeah, there's that...

 

[martybegan]

That’s nice.

They can continue living their moral little life. Baking a cake doesn’t change that. Why do people think they need to enforce their morals on others?

How are they "forcing" anything? The only force is on the governments side saying "do this or be ruined"

What a fucking moron you are.