Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

[kaz]

..

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

 

[kaz]

OMG, I can't make a baker bake me a cage for a fag wedding shaped like a penis, this is like Stalinist Russia! I have no freedom!

Yeah, you have a sense of perspective, thanks ...

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Wrong again.

It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional.

"It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

We are, we're trying to get people to realize that. Here's the thing, you don't get to tell us either what our views are or what we think is appropriate dissent. If you want to scream at people in Starbucks like that whacked out leftist bitch in Florida, then knock yourself out. I personally find what you people do to be reprehensible and it turns me off, not on to your views that you have to act that way. I started a thread and meant it when I said I would never vote for Trump. Still won't. But you shit heads have me defending him more than criticizing him because you have zero perspective about anything and attack him with endless hyperbole

 

[kaz]

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Wrong again.

It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional.

"It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

 

[kaz]

..

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

Again Clayton the Blowhard runs away from the critical question regarding the Commerce Clause and his endless fallacies based on it.

The commerce clause gives congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

Going to the baker down the street has nothing to do with trade between the States. Congress would have the power to say a State cannot say pass a law that gay owned businesses cannot import products into their State. Trade between the States is not a justification for saying you have to bake cakes for fag weddings when they walk into your bakery

 

[Coyote]

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

What is "unconstitutional about it"? I can't find any examples where those laws have faced a constitutional challenge and been shot down. It seems that the "religious liberty" laws are a bit more problematic.

What a supremely stupid comment...and what a fascinating, if distressing, insight into your 'research' method. Anyway, the unconstitutionality of forcing people to act contrary to their faith for no reason has already been explained to you. Maybe you should research the constitution itself, instead of relying only on the outcome of violations of it. Because sometimes...quite often, laws are created in violation of the constitution. Congress is supposed to intervene and prevent that. When they refuse to, you end up with bad law (lawlessness). And it is cause for revolution.

blah blah blah blah....all this to say that public accommodation laws, in all these years, have never faced a constitutional challenge? If they were unconsitutional, I'm sure - by now, some rightiwng group would have gotten it to the Supreme Court.

No right is unlimited and that includes freedom of religion.

Correct.

Although our rights are inalienable, they are not absolute, they are in fact subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

The bakery is not a house of worship..

Nor does it have to be, for the owner to exercise his religious beliefs.
You don't leave your faith at the door of the church when you leave. You try to live it. Free exercise means a LACK of restriction. Not, confined to a specific arena. Exercise implies action. Infringe means to restrict, limit, curb, or check. < None of those are permitted under the constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of one's religion.

So if exercising one's faith means sacificing live animals that should not be restricted?

Is it against the law to kill animals?

It's against the law in some states to discriminate against homosexuals.

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

 

[Coyote]

I don't care if.people sacrifice animals...but wtf is the relevance?

Never mind...I know there is.none.

What if your religion required plural marriages?

I don't care..as long as human rights aren't violated. I personally don't think the state should be involved in the marriage business. It's a sacrament, and you know the government isn't supposed to be involved in religion...as you said.

I actually agree with you there. The government should not be involved.

 

[Coyote]

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

 

[bripat9643]

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

 

[Coyote]

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

 

[koshergrl]

..

You can't force a baker to bake something unreasonable - for either a hetero or homosexual wedding. No penis cake. No penis in vagina cake either. That's not an issue of same sex wedding.

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

 

[Coyote]

..

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[koshergrl]

..
Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited.

human rights are unlimited, provided your right doesn't violate someone else's.

And there is no right to have a christian bake a fag wedding cake. Doesn't exist. It's neither a human, or a civil, right to be able to force people to commit sacrilege.

 

[Centinel]

..
Not according to the laws in some states.

Unconstitutional laws constitute lawlessness. Now you're just chasing your tail, peon.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State public accommodations laws are in fact Constitutional:

‘As we have pointed out, 32 States now have [public accommodations laws] and no case has been cited to us where the attack on a state statute has been successful, either in federal or state courts. Indeed, in some cases, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause objections have been specifically discarded in this Court. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 34 n. 12 (1948). As a result, the constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce." At 569-570. See also Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).'

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And again, as you have demonstrated in post after post exhibiting your bigotry and hate toward gay Americans, such laws are very much necessary and proper.

What does going to the baker down the street have to do with interstate commerce?

Does that mean a person has the right to stand up in a theatre and start yelling proclamations about his faith?

Theater owners get to set the rules for you behavior in their theater. Yelling is one of the things they don't allow. It has nothing to do with restrictions on your First Amendment rights.

Exactly. Like I said. Rights are not unlimited.

If not, your examples didn't prove it. The fact that theater owners get to set the rules on how customers have to behave in their theater is not a limitation on your First Amendment rights. It's simply a result of the fact that movie theaters are private property, and the owners get to set the rules.

Good point.

Let's change the scenario. Does your right to free speech allow you to incite a mob to violence?

Rights are unlimited. However, one's lawful actions are not unlimited, since they may violate the rights of others. Standing up in a theatre and yelling violates the property rights of the theatre owner.

I disagree. Rights are limited.

Your rights do not trump public safety, for example. They can not enroach on the rights of another. They can not damage national security.

How would any right conflict with public safety? No right does encroach on the rights of others. How would a right damage national security?

The right to free speech could conflict with public safety - example, the often used "yelling fire (when there is not) in a crowded theatre."

The right of a free press or free speech could damage national security if classified information was publicly released or if treason was commited.

Why are you mindlessly citing stuff that everybody already knows...and which isn't the slightest bit relevant to baking cakes???

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited.

One may act as one pleases as long as he doesn't violate the body or property of anyone else. We all have the right to not have our bodies and property violated by others.

Using force against someone for doing nothing (not baking a cake; not engaging in exchange) is a clear violation of his body and property.

 

[bodecea]

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Wrong again.

It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional.

"It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

 

[Centinel]

Wrong again.

It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional.

"It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

 

[bodecea]

"It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

 

[Centinel]

It's unreasonable to expect a baker to commit sacrilege.

Wrong again.

It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional.

"It’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to expect all citizens to obey just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, which as we have established are indeed Constitutional."

They are, however, unjust, since they result in force being initiated against a person who has done nothing to anyone else.

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

None of which has any effect on the fact that it's unjust to make a law that results in using force against someone who has done nothing to anyone else. There are very few cases in which violence is justified, and a person choosing not to engage in exchange isn't one of them.

 

[Centinel]

If Public Accomodation laws are unjust, why are you not actively working to get them repealed in your state?

Why do you assume I'm not?

She's assigning you the task of protesting, that's the only acceptable dissent, according to her. I'm guessing you don't give a shit what she assigns us to do to express our views any more than I do ...

We protested, we lobbied, we WORKED at gaining our equal civil rights. We did not sit at a keyboard and whine, doing nothing else. Political action takes time and........action.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other people.

I make assumptions of what it takes to affect political change.....true assumptions. If you want to get rid of PA laws you must be willing to to the work to affect political change like we did...like women did to get the vote...like other people have done in the history of this great nation. PA laws have been found to be constitutional so you only option to eliminate them is to push for your state legislatures to repeal them. Now......do you think that you can get enough people to agree?

Yes.

 

[Papageorgio]

So are you against PA laws in general or only if they protect people based on sexual orientation?

I personally am against giving any special protections to BEHAVIORS. Race, gender, country of origin are other matters altogether. Banging some guy in the ass as your kink is not a "protected right" anymore than bulimia is. Bulimia is just another eating-orientation. If we aren't required by law to place vomit urns on tables to accommodate bulimics, then we aren't required to bake gays wedding cakes.

And if you want to talk about religion being a behavior, fine. But remember, their protected rights do not mean they can force others to abdicate their beliefs and subscribe to theirs instead....like what you're cult is trying to do to Christians..

Nice how u are against things that make America great.

We suffer already from Christian -Shiara law .

Just last week I was shut out of buying beer on Sunday because it was "Easter "! Damn Christian oppression.

Pretty tough for you alcoholics to abstain one day from your beloved liquor.

Costco was closed on Easter! OMG! And they aren't religious. WTF?