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.
You don't have historical evidence backing up your position, you have history which you erroneously extrapolate in an attempt to prove your point. And considering this is not allowing "religion to rule" but allowing private citizens to act on their own conscience, your whole attempt to equate allowing a baker to say "I can't serve you" to a gay couple to witches being burned at the stake is show for what it is, pathetic.
Don't get booty battered over my use of an extreme example. Religion running rampant caused the witch burnings. You don't like the example then thats too bad. You have to deal with your emotions over that. You can claim its extreme and I wouldn't argue but to say its not valid is puerile. When engaging with the public you will abide by the rules of business or be dealt with. How many times are you going to need to learn this lesson?
This isn't a case of religion running rampant, the baker/photographer is not telling these people how to live their lives. Their refusal to provide a service is a momentary inconvenience, not anywhere near rampant. Your example is idiotic. its argumentum ad absurdum, a classic example.
And the only lesson you are providing is one of a person unable to slither away and admit they have lost (you).
No one is "asking religious people who's moral compass says gay unions are sinful to participate in the celebration of said union, to witness acts of affection among homosexuals."
Selling a cake or doing photography, when it has been publicly advertised and offered, cannot be infringed by private belief.
This is the customer's choice not that of the business.
The photographer HAS TO ATTEND THE EVENT. A baker usually has to attend at least for part of the event as well.
So a business owner is a slave to the customer?
No one is "asking religious people who's moral compass says gay unions are sinful to participate in the celebration of said union, to witness acts of affection among homosexuals."
Selling a cake or doing photography, when it has been publicly advertised and offered, cannot be infringed by private belief.
This is the customer's choice not that of the business.
The photographer HAS TO ATTEND THE EVENT. A baker usually has to attend at least for part of the event as well.
So a business owner is a slave to the customer?
Yes retard. If they do the same thing for other customers they need to do it for all. Why are you still whining about this? You lose and the gay couple wins.
Don't get booty battered over my use of an extreme example. Religion running rampant caused the witch burnings. You don't like the example then thats too bad. You have to deal with your emotions over that. You can claim its extreme and I wouldn't argue but to say its not valid is puerile. When engaging with the public you will abide by the rules of business or be dealt with. How many times are you going to need to learn this lesson?
This isn't a case of religion running rampant, the baker/photographer is not telling these people how to live their lives. Their refusal to provide a service is a momentary inconvenience, not anywhere near rampant. Your example is idiotic. its argumentum ad absurdum, a classic example.
And the only lesson you are providing is one of a person unable to slither away and admit they have lost (you).
Yes it is a case of religion running rampant. I just said it was. The owners are discriminating because of religion. What makes you think that means they have to lecture the couple on how to live their lives? Your entire point is idiotic and smacks of being butthurt.
The photographer HAS TO ATTEND THE EVENT. A baker usually has to attend at least for part of the event as well.
So a business owner is a slave to the customer?
Yes retard. If they do the same thing for other customers they need to do it for all. Why are you still whining about this? You lose and the gay couple wins.
Actually freedom and the country loses, but I guess a protected class is more equal than others.
So you are agreeing that by going into business a person has to become a slave? Isn't that unconstitutional, and against the precepts of the DOI, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
You had twice as much rep as me when you created: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-fl...epublican.html
The fact remains the far right, the social conservatives, and the libertarians have lost much of their weight on this Board.
Such a good thing.
If you want a sounding board for your opinions, tunnel over to DU and hang with the retards over there.
They should be free to go out of business on their own terms. If the public refuses to support them because of their positions, so be it. If people come in droves because they are seen as a company willing to stand up for their convictions, well, so be that too.Yes retard. If they do the same thing for other customers they need to do it for all. Why are you still whining about this? You lose and the gay couple wins.
Actually freedom and the country loses, but I guess a protected class is more equal than others.
So you are agreeing that by going into business a person has to become a slave? Isn't that unconstitutional, and against the precepts of the DOI, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
You cant affect freedom. It is what it is. The country wins as more people are granted equal access. The owners are free to go out of business if they cant wrap their minds around that concept.
I was hoping you were speaking metaphorically when said slave. You are a retard if you can say in the same sentence "business" and "slave" and be serious.
I agree that if you provide services for the public that you provide those service for all members of public exactly like the law says. Are you advocating breaking laws?
You had twice as much rep as me when you created: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-fl...epublican.html
The fact remains the far right, the social conservatives, and the libertarians have lost much of their weight on this Board.
Such a good thing.
This isn't a case of religion running rampant, the baker/photographer is not telling these people how to live their lives. Their refusal to provide a service is a momentary inconvenience, not anywhere near rampant. Your example is idiotic. its argumentum ad absurdum, a classic example.
And the only lesson you are providing is one of a person unable to slither away and admit they have lost (you).
Yes it is a case of religion running rampant. I just said it was. The owners are discriminating because of religion. What makes you think that means they have to lecture the couple on how to live their lives? Your entire point is idiotic and smacks of being butthurt.
No it isn't. One photographer denying service is not religion running rampant or trampling on anyone's rights.
What makes YOU think you can lecture these photographers on how they live their lives? again, i guess some animals are more equal than others.
Your points are those of a control freak, like most progressive points.
