SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[martybegan]

well thats neat, but gays have been dealing with people beating them down with making their lifestyle illegal. Or being to be fired from a job in 29 states because you are gay, so we can ignore this sad whine from you guys about being forced.

People like Marty appear to be fine with denying the rights of others and making them wait to be accepted. They like that feeling of power they get in an otherwise powerless life.

i think marty doesnt really care either way and is just arguing the point.

My concern is with using the government to force people to do private business with people they do not want to do it with. Jim Crow laws were about government FORCING businesses to segregate. Now we have defined public accommodation beyond its original intent to cover ANY business, and we now get the government involved in forcing people to either quit their livelihood or compromise their moral compass.

The greater good was served by removing Jim Crow laws, and forcing the South to integrate. The greater good is not served by forcing some photographer to work at a wedding they don't want to work at.

 

[mal]

Why do you want to force people to associate with those they do not want to?

Just live your life, find another photographer/caterer and be done with it.

Jesus, you people are so fucking self centered and self important it sickens me.

They are looking for Validation where none Exists Naturally...

They will NEVER be Happy, no matter how many Laws are passed, how many Rights of others are Infringed to try to please them...

You will Recited like Gospel that you LOVE that they are Gay and that day, the will still not have the Validation they so Desperately Need.

Because they are Inherently Invalid.



peace...

People who think like you are dying off. In the not too distant future, it is you who will feel the need to seek validation. And of course, we will give it to you.

Whenever you come to your senses, just let us know.

I don't Require Validation... I am not Defying my Natural Design and Demanding Special Rights and Acceptance for a Choice.

There will never be Validation for Homosexuality... Regardless of how many Businesses are run out of town, Churches are stripped of their 1st Amendment Protections, or anything else.

You may have Classrooms of Children Reciting a Pledge to Homosexuality one day (Forget about the Lesbian Kindergarten Teacher who already tried that) and still, you will feel that emptiness inside you and wonder, why am I still Invalid?...

Because you are.



peace...

 

[Iceweasel]

Your info reflects Washington State, here is the Washington State Public Accommodation law. Every State in the union has Public Accommodation laws and (IIRC) just over twenty include sexual orientation. New Mexicos does.

RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.​

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.

That's talking about physical access, that's why there is a separate section for denial of "civil rights". And no, not all states have them. But the main point is that if it were a Constitutional issue, those laws wouldn't exist in some states or cities. Washington is very liberal overall thanks to the Seattle area.

 

[Asclepias]

Ehhhh what?

I know more about my brothers than you do obviously. Moreover, do what you want. Your lack of perspective on reality can only ill serve you. And no, you go about telling people that their thoughts are or aren't original. That some unknown person or thing compelled them to have those thoughts. Just who do you think you are? Oh wait, your thoughts aren't your own. Perhaps you need one of these?

You got caught in a fat lie about your brothers being autistic but I wont press the point. Just rest easy knowing I was not making light of autistic people. I think I'm me thats who I think I am but I fail to see how that makes you the owner of an original thought? As a matter of fact please dazzle me with one. Somehow I doubt you can come up with one. I'll be waiting to see it posted.

I did? Do you know my brothers from someplace? How is it you think you know my family better than I do? You aren't pressing the point because you're fishing for one, not making one.

I managed to fry your brain buddy. Because in that bolded statement, your post was unintelligible.

I am the originator of my own thoughts because the physical manifestation of those thoughts is my brain, which is my own and nobody else's. Nobody else can think for me. People who invented things like cars, airplanes and computers had original thoughts did they not? Or were they convinced to invent the things they invented? You're so full of it my friend.

Yes you did make it up and got busted. Its a known fact autistic people have problems with memory. To fake some kind of moral outrage is silly in light of the fact you didnt even know that.

You managed to fry your own brain trying to comprehend what I was saying because you cant grasp it.

Sorry but explaining to me you have original thoughts is not providing one so try again to think real hard and come up with one. Stop trying to avoid the task point and thinking I won't notice. Lets hear your example of an original thought you have.

People who invented things like cars, airplanes and computers had original thoughts did they not? Or were they convinced to invent the things they invented?

No.Those people got the idea from somewhere else which they freely admit if you actually learn about it. All that stuff was also based on prior knowledge not thought up by the inventor. How did you not know this?

 

[Asclepias]

The Sumerian peoples can be traced as far as 5500 to 3500 BCE Asclepias. If you knew all about the Sumerians, then tell me, what buildings were they most known for? What was their writing called? What was the name of their first city? Please.

Nobody compelled me to buy the parts for my machines, actually. I needed a machine because I needed one, hence why I bought the parts. So, stop making assumptions wiseass.

There are other civilizations older than that. Go do some research and stop asking me to answer dumb questions I can get the answer to off the internet. Please.

Someone compelled you to buy the parts. You didn't need a machine, you wanted one. "Need" would infer your survival depended on it. It didn't. Someone convinced you that getting a computer was a smart investment or something along those lines. I'm not making an assumption. I am stating a fact.

I did "need" that PC. My need for an education compelled me to build one. Nobody told me to buy the parts. I studied schematics and figured out for myself what parts I needed. I convinced myself that if I needed a proper education, and something to occupy my time, thus I needed to make my own machine. So I did.

Are you into palm reading, perchance? Tarot cards? Because you've managed to inaccurately portray what got me to make the first two machines I ever had. Perhaps the people who crafted ENIAC were compelled by someone to do so?

It is well past time for me to put you on my ignore list. Good night.

No you didn't need the PC. You were not going to die if you didn't have one. You were told to buy the parts by someone or you would not know about the concept of money or using it to buy things. You studied someone elses schematics? Again you used someone elses thoughts. You were given the idea you needed a proper education. Does the fact that you used the adjective "proper" and the word "education" give you a clue you were influenced by what society may think?

I dont have to be into palm reading. I simply need to be able to use the knowledge given to me by others to figure out you are full of shit. Yes the people who crafted ENIAC were influenced by counting machines. Not an original thought. Again do you ever research things or do you like making an ass of yourself? Read up on the history of ENIAC.

I would put me on my ignore list as well if I were unable to face the fact I did not know what I was talking about.

 

[Asclepias]

When you say you believe marriage "is the union between a man and a woman", that's pretty much saying that you do not believe in same sex couples marrying. But you'll just try and weasel out of him saying this.

I think you missed the first part of my post. Intelligent people learn to reevaluate their beliefs based on better education, knowledge, etc. Otherwise you can end up holding onto what you thought as a 12 year old well into your 80's if you are not careful.

So was Obama a Nazi, and a bigot just a few years ago ?

I never knew he was a Nazi or a bigot? Do you have a link where he admitted that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your info reflects Washington State, here is the Washington State Public Accommodation law. Every State in the union has Public Accommodation laws and (IIRC) just over twenty include sexual orientation. New Mexicos does.

RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.​

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.

That's talking about physical access, that's why there is a separate section for denial of "civil rights". And no, not all states have them. But the main point is that if it were a Constitutional issue, those laws wouldn't exist in some states or cities. Washington is very liberal overall thanks to the Seattle area.

I guess you missed the first part of the law: "It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination..."


So which state doesn't have Public Accommodation laws?



>>>>

 

[Asclepias]

well thats neat, but gays have been dealing with people beating them down with making their lifestyle illegal. Or being to be fired from a job in 29 states because you are gay, so we can ignore this sad whine from you guys about being forced.

People like Marty appear to be fine with denying the rights of others and making them wait to be accepted. They like that feeling of power they get in an otherwise powerless life.

And narcissistic pricks such as yourself can't let other people live their lives they way they want to. you have to force them to have the same moral structure you do, and you have to use the government's gun to force them to do it.

Fucking cowards, all of you.

A narcissistic prick calling someone else a narcissistic prick? That just made my day.

People can live however they choose.....within the limits of the law. You see Marty, asswipes such as yourself dont get to ride roughshod over people because of your religious beliefs. You dont like that then tough. Convince your friends to vote to change business law. If we allowed people like you to run things we would have people burning women in bonfires claiming they are witches.

 

[GISMYS]

BELIEVE GOD'S WORD!!! Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 6:9
GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN= ‘God made them male and female’ from the beginning of creation. 7 ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, 8 and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, 9 let no one split apart what God has joined together.” Mark 10:7

 

[Asclepias]

^^^^^

Right on cue an example of what our president would be like if we allow religion to run the country.

 

[martybegan]

People like Marty appear to be fine with denying the rights of others and making them wait to be accepted. They like that feeling of power they get in an otherwise powerless life.

And narcissistic pricks such as yourself can't let other people live their lives they way they want to. you have to force them to have the same moral structure you do, and you have to use the government's gun to force them to do it.

Fucking cowards, all of you.

A narcissistic prick calling someone else a narcissistic prick? That just made my day.

People can live however they choose.....within the limits of the law. You see Marty, asswipes such as yourself dont get to ride roughshod over people because of your religious beliefs. You dont like that then tough. Convince your friends to vote to change business law. If we allowed people like you to run things we would have people burning women in bonfires claiming they are witches.

So instead people get to ride roughshod over others because of who they decide they like to bugger? And your argumentum ad absurdum at the bottom is one of the dumbest statements I have seen on this website, Truthmatters dumb.

The laws are stupid, they are applied stupidly, and they are evidence of progressives inability to allow others to live as they want to live.

 

[Asclepias]

And narcissistic pricks such as yourself can't let other people live their lives they way they want to. you have to force them to have the same moral structure you do, and you have to use the government's gun to force them to do it.

Fucking cowards, all of you.

A narcissistic prick calling someone else a narcissistic prick? That just made my day.

People can live however they choose.....within the limits of the law. You see Marty, asswipes such as yourself dont get to ride roughshod over people because of your religious beliefs. You dont like that then tough. Convince your friends to vote to change business law. If we allowed people like you to run things we would have people burning women in bonfires claiming they are witches.

So instead people get to ride roughshod over others because of who they decide they like to bugger? And your argumentum ad absurdum at the bottom is one of the dumbest statements I have seen on this website, Truthmatters dumb.

The laws are stupid, they are applied stupidly, and they are evidence of progressives inability to allow others to live as they want to live.

No one is riding roughshod over anyone. You will obey the rules set up to govern businesses. Stop whining. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to observe. You will obey them all or when caught you will be penalized. Maybe if you repeat this to yourself over and over again it will sink in. Your religion doesn't dictate anything but your choices in life. They dont set rules that others have to live by. Please get this through your head.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hmmmmm

Then why are Democrats allowed not only to SPEAK but to IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS on others through laws and federal govt, even mandates!

By this statement that only political speech is protected,
Democrats who believe in govt health care should have the right
to EXPRESS their beliefs, but not EXERCISE THEM through govt as a BELIEF.

Why the double standard, Jake?

Political belief is not protected, only political speech.

If Democrats have a particular "denomination" on the prochoice principles,
Where it only applies to free choice of abortion
but not regarding health care in general, and others apply the same concept
to say that health care should remain a free choice not penalized by govt.

Why is one side allowed to IMPOSE their beliefs through federal laws,
mandates and fines, but the other is penalized by law?

If only "political speech but not beliefs" are protected,
then why is one side able to push their agenda through government?

Why aren't both sides equally free to EXPRESS their beliefs
and keep the REST OUT OF GOVT since neither side should be protected
much less endorsed by government?

I also see there is "competition to establish a monopoly" on who decides
who is a hypocrite or not, when to me it seems pretty equal:

After Luddly I noticed it is
NOT OKAY for Hobby Lobby or Christians to have "hypocrisy"
or "double standards" in their arguments
but IT IS OKAY for Democrats to contradict their own "prochoice" principles
and not be denounced as political fraud!

Is our democratic process nothing more than a HUGE GAME of bullying
and anything goes, depending who can crush or outyell or outspend the other in the media?

Really, Jake?

No political beliefs are protected, but if you can bully down the other
you can force your way through govt as long as you can manipulate majority rule?

You can use courts, political parties, media campaigns to push agenda
against discriminating against gays and against prochoice feminists,
"because THOSE MINORITIES are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
against discrimination."

But if people argue against discriminating against Christians or prochoice beliefs
in free market health care (which doesn't pose immediate dangers and risk as abortion
which IS defended religiously from regulation or penalty) then THOSE people ARE NOT counted as a group protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I get it already, Jake!

One party has the RIGHT (not an "optional belief protected under law,"
but it is just the truth) to dictate who is an excluded minority and who isn't.

They YELL when anyone of opposing beliefs does that,
but they do it themselves!

This PARTY PLATFORM does not count as an "Optional belief or a choice,"
but it IS THE LAW that people haven't recognized yet but need to.

Not the Constitution. Not natural laws that apply to all people.

Only the Democrats and the liberals who are progay antichristian, prochoice for abortion but antichoice for health care

are protected because THEY have determined who counts as an excluded minority.

Those are not beliefs, that is the law and everyone else is wrong.

FORGET and STOP the Christians if they dare impose their beliefs as the law or only right way, but the Democrat Party is allowed to do this because that isn't a belief system it's "just the truth".

I get it, Jake, that is what is going on;
But I do NOT agree, and I DO believe those are beliefs, and they
do not make sense to me how one can be imposed while the other attacked.

As you said yourself, if these are not protected by law
then why is one side allowed to push more than political speech but actual agenda?

Fine, Jake.

if you agree this is fair,
Why don't we just LEGISLATE that into law and be honest?

Go ahead and vote on an amendment to "establish a national religion"
so it is clear what the laws are.

If only "one political agenda" is allowed, even though technically
NO POLITICAL BELIEFS are supposed to be protected by law only SPEECH,
let's just spell out that exception so everyone knows what the rules are!

Let the Democrat Party establish their platform as the law of the land,
force all taxpayers to pay tithes to these programs.

Because it isn't officially a religion, church or belief system, so it is not unlawful to force people to pay into it. As long as Democrats can claim they are discriminated against if they don't have their way, then they have to be right. Their way is law and nobody else counts.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is riding roughshod over anyone. You will obey the rules set up to govern businesses. Stop whining. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to observe. You will obey them all or when caught you will be penalized. Maybe if you repeat this to yourself over and over again it will sink in. Your religion doesn't dictate anything but your choices in life. They dont set rules that others have to live by. Please get this through your head.

Is there a smiley face for "alarm or bells going off"?

RE: "don't get to pick and choose, but must obey all or you will be penalized"

Where is this enforced for the other side?

If people who defend progay beliefs on marriage and prochoice beliefs in abortion
demand to have equal protection of the laws,
why not the same protections for beliefs of others?

Isn't that "picking and choosing" WHICH people, views or groups to
"defend and protect by law" and which to attack as against your beliefs?

How is this "equal protection and representation" for all people of all views?
Isn't this a CLEAR "conflict of interest" where political groups "pick and choose"
how to WRITE, apply and enforce laws to defend only THEIR side?

Where is the acceptance of any responsibility of penalty for excluding others
in violation of these same laws? Isn't that an act of "picking and choosing" which cases, people, or SIDES the laws apply to?

For the ACA, the penalty is NOT put on the people who AGREE to the policy of buying insurance; the penalty is put on the people who DON'T comply, agree or believe
in govt health care mandates.

Why is the penalty put on the people who want free choice that includes ALL people's beliefs about health care as equal options?

Why are the politicians who are pushing to restrict, limit and fine the choice of paying for health care being REWARDED and NOT "penalized for discrimination" against others?

How does this apply again? Can you please explain?
Aren't we all picking and choosing?

So why is one side faulted for this but the other side excused?
Picking and choosing again, perhaps?

 

[martybegan]

A narcissistic prick calling someone else a narcissistic prick? That just made my day.

People can live however they choose.....within the limits of the law. You see Marty, asswipes such as yourself dont get to ride roughshod over people because of your religious beliefs. You dont like that then tough. Convince your friends to vote to change business law. If we allowed people like you to run things we would have people burning women in bonfires claiming they are witches.

So instead people get to ride roughshod over others because of who they decide they like to bugger? And your argumentum ad absurdum at the bottom is one of the dumbest statements I have seen on this website, Truthmatters dumb.

The laws are stupid, they are applied stupidly, and they are evidence of progressives inability to allow others to live as they want to live.

No one is riding roughshod over anyone. You will obey the rules set up to govern businesses. Stop whining. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to observe. You will obey them all or when caught you will be penalized. Maybe if you repeat this to yourself over and over again it will sink in. Your religion doesn't dictate anything but your choices in life. They dont set rules that others have to live by. Please get this through your head.

So forcing someone to either a) violate their morals or b) go out of business is not riding roughshod over them? Please. And the question is if these laws are just, not if you HAVE to obey them.

And how is making someone go to another baker/photographer setting rules on how others live by? Evidently shagging someone of the same sex magically makes you able to dictate how others live.

 

[Asclepias]

No one is riding roughshod over anyone. You will obey the rules set up to govern businesses. Stop whining. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to observe. You will obey them all or when caught you will be penalized. Maybe if you repeat this to yourself over and over again it will sink in. Your religion doesn't dictate anything but your choices in life. They dont set rules that others have to live by. Please get this through your head.

Is there a smiley face for "alarm or bells going off"?

RE: "don't get to pick and choose, but must obey all or you will be penalized"

Where is this enforced for the other side?

If people who defend progay beliefs on marriage and prochoice beliefs in abortion
demand to have equal protection of the laws,
why not the same protections for beliefs of others?

Isn't that "picking and choosing" WHICH people, views or groups to
"defend and protect by law" and which to attack as against your beliefs?

How is this "equal protection and representation" for all people of all views?
Isn't this a CLEAR "conflict of interest" where political groups "pick and choose"
how to WRITE, apply and enforce laws to defend only THEIR side?

Where is the acceptance of any responsibility of penalty for excluding others
in violation of these same laws? Isn't that an act of "picking and choosing" which cases, people, or SIDES the laws apply to?

For the ACA, the penalty is NOT put on the people who AGREE to the policy of buying insurance; the penalty is put on the people who DON'T comply, agree or believe
in govt health care mandates.

Why is the penalty put on the people who want free choice that includes ALL people's beliefs about health care as equal options?

Why are the politicians who are pushing to restrict, limit and fine the choice of paying for health care being REWARDED and NOT "penalized for discrimination" against others?

How does this apply again? Can you please explain?
Aren't we all picking and choosing?

So why is one side faulted for this but the other side excused?
Picking and choosing again, perhaps?

There is no "side" to it. Its a law that treats everyone the same. People voted and put others in office to make decisions for them. This is what they came up with. If this is not what you want, vote someone in that will make and enforce laws you enjoy. That is how the process works. What plan of action do you have that will satisfy everyone? My guess is that you don't because it is impossible. The problem is that your "religion" is not a valid argument. Who decides which religion is correct? You can believe whatever you want however you cannot practice it however you want without penalty if you transgress on the rights of others given to them by the government.

 

[Asclepias]

So instead people get to ride roughshod over others because of who they decide they like to bugger? And your argumentum ad absurdum at the bottom is one of the dumbest statements I have seen on this website, Truthmatters dumb.

The laws are stupid, they are applied stupidly, and they are evidence of progressives inability to allow others to live as they want to live.

No one is riding roughshod over anyone. You will obey the rules set up to govern businesses. Stop whining. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to observe. You will obey them all or when caught you will be penalized. Maybe if you repeat this to yourself over and over again it will sink in. Your religion doesn't dictate anything but your choices in life. They dont set rules that others have to live by. Please get this through your head.

So forcing someone to either a) violate their morals or b) go out of business is not riding roughshod over them? Please. And the question is if these laws are just, not if you HAVE to obey them.

And how is making someone go to another baker/photographer setting rules on how others live by? Evidently shagging someone of the same sex magically makes you able to dictate how others live.

No its not riding roughshod over them. No one is making them violate their morals. They can choose to close up shop and get another source of income. They are only being forced to comply with the law that does this equally to everyone else. The laws are just because they treat everyone the same.

You didn't realize you said "making". If their desire is to purchase the particular service that you offer to everyone else and you make them go elsewhere to get it then you just set a rule that is unfair to that person or group. They should not be forced to go somewhere else just because of your religious beliefs. Your religious belief does not trump their right to be treated equally. If you dont want to obey the laws then stop being a business owner and you wont have to deal with any perceived conflict. You can at that point avoid all the gay people you want without penalty.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I think you missed the first part of my post. Intelligent people learn to reevaluate their beliefs based on better education, knowledge, etc. Otherwise you can end up holding onto what you thought as a 12 year old well into your 80's if you are not careful.

So was Obama a Nazi, and a bigot just a few years ago ?

I never knew he was a Nazi or a bigot? Do you have a link where he admitted that?

Well I'm assuming you guys on the left would be consistent, and since today if anyone is against gay marriage you guys instantly call them names, so I'm just assuming you were calling Obama names too, right ?

 

[martybegan]

No one is riding roughshod over anyone. You will obey the rules set up to govern businesses. Stop whining. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to observe. You will obey them all or when caught you will be penalized. Maybe if you repeat this to yourself over and over again it will sink in. Your religion doesn't dictate anything but your choices in life. They dont set rules that others have to live by. Please get this through your head.

So forcing someone to either a) violate their morals or b) go out of business is not riding roughshod over them? Please. And the question is if these laws are just, not if you HAVE to obey them.

And how is making someone go to another baker/photographer setting rules on how others live by? Evidently shagging someone of the same sex magically makes you able to dictate how others live.

No its not riding roughshod over them. No one is making them violate their morals. They can choose to close up shop and get another source of income. They are only being forced to comply with the law that does this equally to everyone else. The laws are just because they treat everyone the same.

You didn't realize you said "making". If their desire is to purchase the particular service that you offer to everyone else and you make them go elsewhere to get it then you just set a rule that is unfair to that person or group. They should not be forced to go somewhere else just because of your religious beliefs. Your religious belief does not trump their right to be treated equally. If you dont want to obey the laws then stop being a business owner and you wont have to deal with any perceived conflict. You can at that point avoid all the gay people you want without penalty.

That IS riding roughshod over them. You are basically saying they cannot make a living as they want to soley because of their moral convictions, convictions that are only an issue in a tiny number of situation.

What you are saying is still who you want to have sex with trumps a persons moral compass when it comes to doing business. Equality is what the government should practice, forcing some baker to go against their morals or close shop is fascist.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no "side" to it. Its a law that treats everyone the same. People voted and put others in office to make decisions for them. This is what they came up with. If this is not what you want, vote someone in that will make and enforce laws you enjoy. That is how the process works. What plan of action do you have that will satisfy everyone? My guess is that you don't because it is impossible. The problem is that your "religion" is not a valid argument. Who decides which religion is correct? You can believe whatever you want however you cannot practice it however you want without penalty if you transgress on the rights of others given to them by the government.

????

We could be getting close, A.

Do you realize that you sound like the same people being fought against?

BINGO! They are ALSO trying to get the law applied to themselves THE SAME.

And yes, what WOULD satisfy all people IS to have a neutral or agreed decision.

For example, if people have different favorite colors,
cannot agree to paint a house blue or red on the inside:
either paint separate houses, or paint separate rooms in the same house, or paint it neutral and have red or blue furniture to move around instead of walls that can't be.

You can also agree to call it an even trade.

What if in one situation, people recognize that the prochoice side of abortion is biased against prolife, because freedom of choice is more important than the ill consequences
that could otherwise be reduced or prevented by more careful regulations;
while in the health care policies, prochoice in paying for health care without restrictions
or mandates is biased against the right to health folks who want govt to pay for all of it.

So both sides could agree to separate which parts they agree to fund and follow together,
and make that part the public program, and which parts they don't agree on and keep that separate instead of fighting and discriminating against the other views.

A I still see people only defending their side over the other.

There is a DIFFERENCE between NOT being antigay and being progay.
There is a DIFFERENT between NOT being antichoice and being proabortion.

Instead of being neutral, which allows either pro or anti views (of life, choice, gay etc),

Where people "cross the line" and start discriminating is when they go BEYOND just being neutral and start pushing policies that favor their views and EXCLUDE or punish the other.

So that is equally discrimination by creed.

If people don't believe consensus is possible, then why not separate?
Couples separate all the time, and still raise their kids together and pay for their college.

If they can't agree on the rules to the house, why not separate and manage all the programs they want under separate roofs. The govt can be reserved for general issues all people agree on, and keep the rest in separate camps so resources aren't wasted fighting.