Nashville Flower Shop Refuses Business with Republicans.

[JoeB131]

Well, then let's be more clear - it's different when Democrats do it.

Um, as long as they aren't breaking a law, then, yes, it's okay.

As pointed out, TN does not have a stipulation for LGBTQ in it's Public Accommodation Law, so they can also refuse gay couples.

The modern liberal approach to "civil rights" is the opposite of equal rights. It's influence peddling and social engineering. Or, as you call it "equity".

What's wrong with a little social engineering? If we had started out as "All Men Are Created Equal", then you might have a point. We didn't. We started out with white, Christian, straight, cisgender folks having an advantage over people of color, women, non-Christians and LGBTQ.

But again, you are a libertarian child who thinks this civilization stuff happens through magic thinking and pixie dust.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ahhh, it's always fun to watch a bigot called on his bigotry.



Okay.. except they still follow SOME of those old laws, and reject others. The word of God is not a Chinese menu.


Then he should spare himself the trouble and find something else to do for a living.


You are the one who whined that the left "cancelled" Philips... And, yes, they did organize boycotts of his store and complained about him to the Human Right Commission.



Well, um, no. The law says you can't discriminate based on religion. Now, you could argue if they wanted pentagrams on their cake, or a cake that said, "Hail Satan" he might have a leg to stand on. But if they wanted a typical cake... probably not.

Media Matters Rounds Up Glenn Beck’s Most Racist Moments - Colorlines

Low moments in Beck's effort to "reclaim" the civil rights movement.

colorlines.com

Glenn Beck Archives - Towleroad Gay News

www.towleroad.com

Bullshit. The court has already ruled that religion can't be used to disobey laws.





Actually, there's no debate at all. The current bunch of right wing goons are ignoring decades of established precedents to remake America in their theocratic image.

Separation of Church and State. The only wall we need to build in this country.

Ahhh, it's always fun to watch a bigot called on his bigotry.

You still haven’t shown any bigotry, racism, or homophobia. All you’ve done is just point to things you don’t like and said “there’s your homophobia! Theres your racism!” without actually explaining what you feel qualified in either case.

Okay.. except they still follow SOME of those old laws, and reject others. The word of God is not a Chinese menu.

How do you know that? What old laws are they accepting…which are they rejecting? Are you talking about Phillips here, or just people in general? Again, most Christian’s today believe in the new covenant, which means the old customs were done away with. That means food laws, stoning, plucking out your eyes and cutting off your hands, celebrating the holy days, things like that were done away with.

You are the one who whined that the left "cancelled" Philips... And, yes, they did organize boycotts of his store and complained about him to the Human Right Commission.

I’ve never whined about the left cancelling his store…i wasn’t even aware they did a boycott. All I knew is that he was being sued.

Well, um, no. The law says you can't discriminate based on religion. Now, you could argue if they wanted pentagrams on their cake, or a cake that said, "Hail Satan" he might have a leg to stand on. But if they wanted a typical cake... probably not.

Nope, if they ask him to bake a cake for a satanic themed wedding, or any other event, he has the right to not use his labor to specifically further that event, or support that event.

Now if a satanist comes in and says “hey, I want a cake for my birthday, the theme is hot rod cars”, then yeah, he has to bake that cake. If a trans person comes in and says “I want you to bake a cake for my husbands promotion party, the theme is polar bears”, he has to bake that cake too.

See where I’m going with this?

Now, as to your links about beck, I’m going to ask you to point out the racism and homophobia, because all I see are criticisms of certain things, and the link to the gay website was pretty much just beck having guests on his program who were saying certain things, only one of which, the guy who wants to ban homosexuality, would be considered homophobia, but nothing beck said was homophobic.

Also, in the first link you post an article that sources far left wing sites like salon.com, who have no love for anyone on the right. So naturally, they are going to look at anything that criticizes black people like Obama as some type of racism.

So, I assume, judging by your “if you disagree with me, you’re guilty of…” stance, I’m fairly certain you are also in the “if you criticize black people or gay people, you are racist and homophobia” camp as well.

So, what, in those articles, do you feel was racist, or homophobic?

Actually, there's no debate at all. The current bunch of right wing goons are ignoring decades of established precedents to remake America in their theocratic image.

Separation of Church and State. The only wall we need to build in this country.

What established precedent? Do you mean roe?? That’s an example of why precedent is not always a good thing, and why precedent should never be considered “law”. Courts can’t grant rights and they can’t make laws, roe going back to the states was only correcting a decades long mistake.

Separation of Church and State. The only wall we need to build in this country.

Separation of church and state doesn’t exist, except to say that government can’t establish a national religion.

We’ve talked about this, separation of church and state was to protect the churches from government creating a national religion. It’s not in the cotus, it was in a letter from Jefferson to Danbury church.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Um, no. Discriminating against someone for political beliefs isn't against the law. If you think it should be, contact your representative.
Discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation IS against the law, at least in some states.

It is different, because the laws are different.

Actually, if you are going to cite PA laws, then discrimination against a trumper is actually quite against the law, isn’t it?

 

[2aguy]

Um, as long as they aren't breaking a law, then, yes, it's okay.

As pointed out, TN does not have a stipulation for LGBTQ in it's Public Accommodation Law, so they can also refuse gay couples.



What's wrong with a little social engineering? If we had started out as "All Men Are Created Equal", then you might have a point. We didn't. We started out with white, Christian, straight, cisgender folks having an advantage over people of color, women, non-Christians and LGBTQ.

But again, you are a libertarian child who thinks this civilization stuff happens through magic thinking and pixie dust.

Moron....that is literally in the Founding Document..........

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

 

[JoeB131]

Now if a satanist comes in and says “hey, I want a cake for my birthday, the theme is hot rod cars”, then yeah, he has to bake that cake. If a trans person comes in and says “I want you to bake a cake for my husbands promotion party, the theme is polar bears”, he has to bake that cake too.

See where I’m going with this?

Yeah, absolutely nowhere.

Without wading thorugh the whole thing... A gay wedding cake is functionally no different than a straight wedding cake.

They homophobe is discriminating on who people are... not what they did.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, absolutely nowhere.

Without wading thorugh the whole thing... A gay wedding cake is functionally no different than a straight wedding cake.

They homophobe is discriminating on who people are... not what they did.

Only to you and those who think like you.

And they object to what they are doing. A SSM is a celebration of a Same sex relationship, something many people find immoral and sinful.

 

[JoeB131]

Only to you and those who think like you.

And they object to what they are doing. A SSM is a celebration of a Same sex relationship, something many people find immoral and sinful.

Oh, please, do you think most vendors for weddings are "celebrating"?
I'm in the process of planning my wedding and I promise you, not one vendor I have contacted (except maybe the minister) has any emotional investment in this other than "Will I get paid?"

If it were about bible adherence, then they should do a marriage for anyone who is living together before marriage (about 75%), or a whole slew of other Bible Laws that people are breaking.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, please, do you think most vendors for weddings are "celebrating"?
I'm in the process of planning my wedding and I promise you, not one vendor I have contacted (except maybe the minister) has any emotional investment in this other than "Will I get paid?"

If it were about bible adherence, then they should do a marriage for anyone who is living together before marriage (about 75%), or a whole slew of other Bible Laws that people are breaking.

That's you. That's not them. There is this whole thing called free will you seem to despise.

That isn't up for you to judge, and it's not up to government to arbitrate.

 

[JoeB131]

That's you. That's not them. There is this whole thing called free will you seem to despise.

Okay, free will has consequences. If you don't want to celebrate weddings you don't approve of (not that you are celebrating, just selling a product), then you shouldn't be in the business of selling that product.

That isn't up for you to judge, and it's not up to government to arbitrate.

Nope, it's up to the government to arbitrate whether or not they are in violation of the state's sensible laws. Which they are.

 

[martybegan]

Okay, free will has consequences. If you don't want to celebrate weddings you don't approve of (not that you are celebrating, just selling a product), then you shouldn't be in the business of selling that product.


Nope, it's up to the government to arbitrate whether or not they are in violation of the state's sensible laws. Which they are.

That is a crazy choice, put upon other people by people that are controlling fucks, like you.

These laws aren't sensible when they don't take free exercise, or freedom of speech into account.

Again, you assume people lose all their constitutional rights automatically when they try to sell something, which is fucking retarded.

 

[JoeB131]

That is a crazy choice, put upon other people by people that are controlling fucks, like you.

These laws aren't sensible when they don't take free exercise, or freedom of speech into account.

Again, you assume people lose all their constitutional rights automatically when they try to sell something, which is fucking retarded.

They have all the imaginary rights in the world.

Their businesses still have to follow commerce laws, though. Commerce laws everyone thought were sensible at the time.

 

[martybegan]

They have all the imaginary rights in the world.

Their businesses still have to follow commerce laws, though. Commerce laws everyone thought were sensible at the time.

They have real rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Commerce laws have to follow the constitution.

At the time SSM wasn't in existence, and it's a new concept that is not the same as traditional marriage to many people.

 

[JoeB131]

They have real rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Commerce laws have to follow the constitution.

At the time SSM wasn't in existence, and it's a new concept that is not the same as traditional marriage to many people.

Interracial marriage is a fairly new concept (like within my lifetime), and no one would argue for a "free practice" exception to serving interracial couples.

 

[martybegan]

Interracial marriage is a fairly new concept (like within my lifetime), and no one would argue for a "free practice" exception to serving interracial couples.

No, it isn't Inter-racial, tribal, or ethnic marriages have been around for millenia.

SSM is something made up the past 20 years.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it isn't Inter-racial, tribal, or ethnic marriages have been around for millenia.

But they were against the law in this country 50 years ago. and there are religions that oppose it to this day, for instance, the Fulan Gong cult, which the right is so fond of.

 

[martybegan]

But they were against the law in this country 50 years ago. and there are religions that oppose it to this day, for instance, the Fulan Gong cult, which the right is so fond of.

That was reactionary to the end of the civil war and reconstruction, not something that was built into the laws from the start.

 

[JoeB131]

That was reactionary to the end of the civil war and reconstruction, not something that was built into the laws from the start.

Right, because there were a shitload of interracial marriages before the civil war. Oh, wait, no, there weren't. There was just a lot of slave rape...

 

[dblack]

Sorry... backing up a couple of steps, this just isn't the kind of shit government should be meddling with. Equal rights requires that government treat everyone equally, without bias. The notion that government should, instead, go around making sure that we all treat each other equally, without bias, is the opposite. It requires that government treat us unequally, with bias, and makes individual rights an arbitrary judgement of the state. It is the death of actual equal rights.

 

[martybegan]

Right, because there were a shitload of interracial marriages before the civil war. Oh, wait, no, there weren't. There was just a lot of slave rape...

inter-racial, inter-tribal, inter-ethnic. all the same, and all seen throughout history.

SSM is something invented in the past 20-30 years.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry... backing up a couple of steps, this just isn't the kind of shit government should be meddling with. Equal rights requires that government treat everyone equally, without bias. The notion that government should, instead, go around making sure that we all treat each other equally, without bias, is the opposite. It requires that government treat us unequally, with bias, and makes individual rights an arbitrary judgement of the state. It is the death of actual equal rights.

Can you chill with the hysterics?

We have public accommodation laws for a reason, because a lot of businesses refused to serve blacks, even after slavery ended.

If you hate group # so much, that you are willing to turn down perfectly good money, maybe you should do something else for a living.