Refusal over personal beliefs

[Fair&Balanced]

You're dishonest because that's a crock of shit. You want the validation. If you believed that, you would just fight to end PA laws, not expand them.

I want you to make a queer hating baker bake you a cake though, and eat it ...

Project much?

PA laws don't bother me. Unequal application of them does. If I have to serve a Christian, he should have to serve me. If he doesn't have to serve me, I shouldn't have to serve him. It's that simple.

And you shouldn't have to serve a Christian, who has suggested you should have to serve a CHristian whilst that Christian can refuse service to you? Answer, ,no one.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act requires I serve a Christian in all 50 states. In other words, Federal Law.

Local laws protect gays, Federal law protects Christians.

Go after federal law if you're REALLY concerned about "liberty".

I DO go after federal law. I think it is completely abhorrent to liberty to suggest that the government can force us to work for someone we don't want to work for .

But you have actually bolstered my point . Federal law gives special protection to religion (as well as other groups) and that is unconstitutional.

You absolutely should be appalled by PA laws, but not solely based on the fact that you are gay and you want to discriminate against Christians, that is what makes your argument look weak and childish.

You do? How have you "gone after" Title II of the CRA? (That you didn't even seem to know exists)

How I do or don't isn't really relevant, what is relevant is that you are either for or against laws. If you were TRULY against PA laws you wouldn't come along and say "well since I can't discriminate against Christians, they shouldn't get to discriminate against gays"

You should be free to discriminate against anyone you want to discriminate against. As should Christians.

Do you see the difference in attitude, or am I just further wasting my efforts here?

 

[Seawytch]

Project much?

PA laws don't bother me. Unequal application of them does. If I have to serve a Christian, he should have to serve me. If he doesn't have to serve me, I shouldn't have to serve him. It's that simple.

And you shouldn't have to serve a Christian, who has suggested you should have to serve a CHristian whilst that Christian can refuse service to you? Answer, ,no one.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act requires I serve a Christian in all 50 states. In other words, Federal Law.

Local laws protect gays, Federal law protects Christians.

Go after federal law if you're REALLY concerned about "liberty".

I DO go after federal law. I think it is completely abhorrent to liberty to suggest that the government can force us to work for someone we don't want to work for .

But you have actually bolstered my point . Federal law gives special protection to religion (as well as other groups) and that is unconstitutional.

You absolutely should be appalled by PA laws, but not solely based on the fact that you are gay and you want to discriminate against Christians, that is what makes your argument look weak and childish.

You do? How have you "gone after" Title II of the CRA? (That you didn't even seem to know exists)

How I do or don't isn't really relevant, what is relevant is that you are either for or against laws. If you were TRULY against PA laws you wouldn't come along and say "well since I can't discriminate against Christians, they shouldn't get to discriminate against gays"

You should be free to discriminate against anyone you want to discriminate against. As should Christians.

Do you see the difference in attitude, or am I just further wasting my efforts here?

Of course it's relevant. You're the one that wants them gone so the onus is in you to actually DO something about it...beyond crying about it on a message board.