OK Liberals ...

[Toro]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

 

[Katzndogz]

A vegan would bake a cake, but they would not make a pot roast. They might not want to go to a pot roast dinner to deliver their cake.

Years ago there was a show on tv called Hunter with Fred Dryer. Fred Dryer is a vegan. He has been for years. There was a scene in one episode where Hunter was supposed to eat a hot dog. He refused. The director said he could eat a meat substitute hot dog so that his vegan demands would be satisfied. He refused to eat a tofu dog on camera because the message he was sending was that he would eat a hot dog. He'd rather break the contract and take the consequences than send a message to the public that he didn't want to send. The scene was eventually changed to him eating something else.

Appearing at a same sex wedding, having your name associated with that same sex wedding is the same kind of message that Fred Dryer refused to send.

 

[Samson]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Interesting that you get only conservative respondents so far.

The main tenant that separates The Queer from The Vegan, is the cause of the affliction.

A Vegan is not born a Vegan.

A Queer, like a dwarf, is born a Deviant. They have no choice about their affliction, and therefore should not be made to suffer for it.


Now to Part B: The Religious difference between a Queer and A Vegan.

I take the Quaker, or Orthodox Jew as precedence. There are certain religious groups that isolate themselves from society, or parts of society. They do this voluntarily, and legally. I see no precedent, forcing these groups to interact with "The Inglish" or "The Goyem," that justifies forcing any religious group from interacting with The Dwarf or The Queer or the Vegan, or whoever the fuck they choose based on their wierdo religious belief.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Nothing wrong with the baker refusing to bake a cake.
Nothing wrong with the vegan refusing to deal with meat.

I believe in the separation of church and state. What's wrong, IMO, is having a law that attempts to negate our First Amendment.

If the AZ or other backward, state-level laws pass, they would be struck down by a higher court. The bible thumpers know this. Their purpose, is pushing for these laws, is to push their hate agenda.

 

[Sallow]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

 

[Sallow]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Interesting that you get only conservative respondents so far.

The main tenant that separates The Queer from The Vegan, is the cause of the affliction.

A Vegan is not born a Vegan.

A Queer, like a dwarf, is born a Dwarf. They have no choice about their affliction, and therefore should not be made to suffer for it.


Now to Part B: The Religious difference between a Queer and A Vegan.

I take the Quaker, or Orthodox Jew as precedence. There are certain religious groups that isolate themselves from society, or parts of society. They do this voluntarily, and legally. I see no precedent, forcing these groups to interact with "The Inglish" or "The Goyem," that justifies forcing any religious group from interacting with The Dwarf or The Queer or the Vegan, or whoever the fuck they choose based on their wierdo religious belief.

What?

 

[Samson]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Nothing wrong with the baker refusing to bake a cake.
Nothing wrong with the vegan refusing to deal with meat.

I believe in the separation of church and state. What's wrong, IMO, is having a law that attempts to negate our First Amendment.

If the AZ or other backward, state-level laws pass, they would be struck down by a higher court. The bible thumpers know this. Their purpose, is pushing for these laws, is to push their hate agenda.

Then Orthodox Jews should be forced to do business as much with the Goyem as with each other.

Bravo, for the First Amendment as interpreted by Neddites.

 

[Stephanie]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

What if someone requested a cake be made with your face without your permission to have at a party for a new porn site on the internet?

you say hell yeah go for it..

 

[Samson]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Interesting that you get only conservative respondents so far.

The main tenant that separates The Queer from The Vegan, is the cause of the affliction.

A Vegan is not born a Vegan.

A Queer, like a dwarf, is born a Dwarf. They have no choice about their affliction, and therefore should not be made to suffer for it.


Now to Part B: The Religious difference between a Queer and A Vegan.

I take the Quaker, or Orthodox Jew as precedence. There are certain religious groups that isolate themselves from society, or parts of society. They do this voluntarily, and legally. I see no precedent, forcing these groups to interact with "The Inglish" or "The Goyem," that justifies forcing any religious group from interacting with The Dwarf or The Queer or the Vegan, or whoever the fuck they choose based on their wierdo religious belief.

What?

I'll take that as a shallow rhetorical question or that you do not possess the intelligence to comprehend. Either way, I'm not surprised.

Thanks for playing along, and being predictable is boring.


***yawn***

 

[Samson]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

Toro, I suggest limiting your OP to single syllable words.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"I'm sorry sir, I'm a vegan and can't serve you."

 

[TemplarKormac]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

 

[Sallow]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

What if someone requested a cake be made with your face without your permission to have at a party for a new porn site on the internet?

you say hell yeah go for it..

I don't even know what this means..

 

[Sallow]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

When you open a business?

That's basically not the case. You are required to follow the law.

 

[jillian]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

i think what the vegan is doing is not immoral, per se, but it is ill-considered. it's none of her business what her relatives believe in that regard. if she were running a business that served vegan food and refused to serve people who were not actual vegans, then i'd think the same rules would apply as should apply in business as should apply i any business…. no state supported discrimination.

 

[Sallow]

Interesting that you get only conservative respondents so far.

The main tenant that separates The Queer from The Vegan, is the cause of the affliction.

A Vegan is not born a Vegan.

A Queer, like a dwarf, is born a Dwarf. They have no choice about their affliction, and therefore should not be made to suffer for it.


Now to Part B: The Religious difference between a Queer and A Vegan.

I take the Quaker, or Orthodox Jew as precedence. There are certain religious groups that isolate themselves from society, or parts of society. They do this voluntarily, and legally. I see no precedent, forcing these groups to interact with "The Inglish" or "The Goyem," that justifies forcing any religious group from interacting with The Dwarf or The Queer or the Vegan, or whoever the fuck they choose based on their wierdo religious belief.

What?

I'll take that as a shallow rhetorical question or that you do not possess the intelligence to comprehend. Either way, I'm not surprised.

Thanks for playing along, and being predictable is boring.


***yawn***

You sentence stands on it self.

Queers are born dwarves.

 

[jillian]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

meaningless nonsense

your religious expression doesn't extend to discrimination in provision of public services.

i don't like bigots… but i'd have to serve them if i ran a restaurant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

When you open a business?

That's basically not the case. You are required to follow the law.

Any law which robs you of your religious expression is technically unconstitutional.

 

[Sallow]

I posted this in the Dear Abby is a Bigot thread, but thought it was a topic unto itself.

I'm a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, and I thought the AZ law that Gov Brewer vetoed was bad law. But I'd like the liberals to answer this question.

First, let's all agree that the law in AZ was a bad one, and no one should be able to discriminate against gay people because they're gay.

However, do we apply the same principles to the vegan as we do the Christian? If a vegan refuses to interact with meat-eaters, are they as morally culpable as Christians who refuse to interact with gay people? In this case, is the vegan who refuses to bake a cake for the meat-eaters' wedding as morally reprehensible as the Christian who refuses to base a cake for the gay wedding?

Why or why not?

Nothing wrong with the baker refusing to bake a cake.
Nothing wrong with the vegan refusing to deal with meat.

I believe in the separation of church and state. What's wrong, IMO, is having a law that attempts to negate our First Amendment.

If the AZ or other backward, state-level laws pass, they would be struck down by a higher court. The bible thumpers know this. Their purpose, is pushing for these laws, is to push their hate agenda.

Then Orthodox Jews should be forced to do business as much with the Goyem as with each other.

Bravo, for the First Amendment as interpreted by Neddites.

What? Where is that not the case?

Most people that follow the Jewish faith are happy to take money from anyone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not sure what you are getting at?

If anyone opens a cake making business and someone walks in and wants a cake?

They should get a cake.

"If you like your religious expression, you can keep your religious expression. Period."

meaningless nonsense

In what way?