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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
It was an awkward hypothetical.
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.
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.
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.
No it is not.
By the way..Scalia's judgement said that.
How Scalia Helped Obama Defend The Birth Control Rule
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?
Yes, they would be stupid. Was that the question?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Any law which robs you of your religious expression is technically unconstitutional.
No it is not.
By the way..Scalia's judgement said that.
How Scalia Helped Obama Defend The Birth Control Rule
And how did this discussion relate to birth control? Why was Obama forced to back down from his mandate? Why did they US Supreme Court rule that these little old nuns didn't have to provide birth control for their employees? What was Justice Sotomayor thinking?
Catonsville nuns group not required to provide birth control under Obamacare, judge says - Baltimore Sun
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (this includes women) are not equal, that some should not be served especially if they were endowed by their Creator with gayness or brownness or some other differentness in our eyes, that among these qualities are lots of potential reasons to deny them service that will be determined in a pursuit of our Happiness and our ideological framework of justice. Amen.
Some things are wrong, some things right, it really is kinda interesting that some can find what appears to them as rational reasons and exceptions for wrong.
As far as the use of 'queer,' anyone who uses the pejorative today is wrong. Kinda simple.
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?
Yes, they would be stupid. Was that the question?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
How convenient. I get to reuse a post:
. In summary:
"Religious belief is nonsense, and we should all accept Queers regardless."
For a group than supports $Billions$ in grants for Higher Education based on the meme that, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," the depth of liberal thought about the subject is disappointing
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.
MOST people would be happy to bake a cake for a queer.
We're talking about the rare exceptions that have been placed under the microscope to promote the Queer Agenda of Total Acceptance.
What? Where is that not the case?
Most people that follow the Jewish faith are happy to take money from anyone.
MOST people would be happy to bake a cake for a queer.
We're talking about the rare exceptions that have been placed under the microscope to promote the Queer Agenda of Total Acceptance.
F'ing right wingers and their fear.
.
Yes, they would be stupid. Was that the question?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
How convenient. I get to reuse a post:
. In summary:
"Religious belief is nonsense, and we should all accept Queers regardless."
For a group than supports $Billions$ in grants for Higher Education based on the meme that, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," the depth of liberal thought about the subject is disappointing
What else would it be? If a vegan opened a bakery and refused service to a meat eater they would go out of business. Like I said, it would be stupid. Sorry I didn't waste words on something so simple.
As for the AZ law, they opened it up for anyone. I could be denied service for being an unmarried mother. The law was stupid. Any more questions?.
MOST people would be happy to bake a cake for a queer.
We're talking about the rare exceptions that have been placed under the microscope to promote the Queer Agenda of Total Acceptance.
F'ing right wingers and their fear.
.
Fucking Draconian Queer Agenda!!!
