Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Katzndogz]

It's okay to refuse to perform services, just make sure your refusal is politically correct.

3-year-old Hitler can't get name on cake - US news - Weird news | NBC News

Is there any reason why one bakery is allowed to make a decision as to what kind of cake they will bake and another bakery denied that right?

 

[DiamondDave]

It's okay to refuse to perform services, just make sure your refusal is politically correct.

3-year-old Hitler can't get name on cake - US news - Weird news | NBC News

Is there any reason why one bakery is allowed to make a decision as to what kind of cake they will bake and another bakery denied that right?

We already know it is because of their subjectively equal touchy feely agenda...

 

[KevinWestern]

Businesses discriminate continually on people's choices every day.. and rightfully so.. airlines do not have to cave to the overly obese by offering a seat to fit a 800 pound person.. you can throw out people for behavior from any establishment.. you can refuse to sell food to your competitor.. you can prevent people dressed in ways you do not like from coming in to your business... the list goes on

By opening a business and selling goods (or services) to the public, are you claiming that folks will not be bound by local and federal laws and regulations?

I can cook a meal in a private kitchen that hasn't been checked out by the health inspector and legally share it with my friends, but I can't do that if I were to sell it to strangers in a business setting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given that baking wedding cakes is about as gay a profession as you can have,

isn't it a bit ironic that they would refuse to do business with gays?

Being a baker is gay?

How fucking retarded are you?

Did I need to say 'ghey'?

lol

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gay marriage is not normal.. it is in fact, abnormal.

"Normal" is a relative term.

For instance, it's considered completely normal for two men (or two women) to be a couple in places like San Francisco and Provincetown, MA.

.

Uhm, not by everyone in those cities bub...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Given that baking wedding cakes is about as gay a profession as you can have,

isn't it a bit ironic that they would refuse to do business with gays?

Being a baker is gay?

How fucking retarded are you?

Did I need to say 'ghey'?

lol

I guess all florists are gay too?

 

[KevinWestern]

Gay marriage is not normal.. it is in fact, abnormal.

"Normal" is a relative term.

For instance, it's considered completely normal for two men (or two women) to be a couple in places like San Francisco and Provincetown, MA.

.

Uhm, not by everyone in those cities bub...

My point is what's not normal for you might be perfectly normal to someone else. You have a right to define what's normal for you, but I think you don't have a right to decide what's normal overall.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gay marriage is not normal.. it is in fact, abnormal.

"Normal" is a relative term.

For instance, it's considered completely normal for two men (or two women) to be a couple in places like San Francisco and Provincetown, MA.

.

Uhm, not by everyone in those cities bub...

In parts of San Francisco it was perfectly normal for a grown man to walk around nude and wag his dick in the face of a five year old. It is normal for someone to pull down their pants, squat and take a dump on the sidewalk.

 

[Katzndogz]

With as many vendors of wedding services who are specifically targeting and advertising for gay clientele, a gay couple would have to take pains to find the one, specific, business that objects.

 

[Google]

All along, the homosexual lobby has been comparing the plight of the American homosexuals to that of the American Civil Right Movement. They believe it is completely synonomous, and thus individuals and businesses making the decision to simply not provide support or services to a gay wedding is paramount to segregation.

Keep in mind that the homosexual population is 1-4% of the population. We are redefining an institution whose soul purpose is to protect children and give legal obligation to men and women who have children--all on the demands of 1-4% of the population. It is not enough to give civil unions, allowing homosexual couples the same benefits as a marriage, they demand we redefine the entire definition of the word.

The left has been waging a war, literally, against the institution of marriage since the 60's. Little by litte, court decision after court decision, inch by inch--chipping away at the foundations of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock had legal consequences once upon a time. A man had no right to a child outside of marriage, and a woman had no right to that man's finances. That court decision opened the flood gates, leading to adoption numbers to drop drastically from the 60's to present day.

 

[Amelia]

Are doctors required to perform abortions if they believe abortion to be wrong?

 

[KevinWestern]

In parts of San Francisco it was perfectly normal for a grown man to walk around nude and wag his dick in the face of a five year old. It is normal for someone to pull down their pants, squat and take a dump on the sidewalk.

Really - That would be 'normal' in some parts of San Francisco (a naked grown man waving his member in front of a child) before taking a dump on the sidewalk?

I'd like to google this and verify; can you send me the location(s) on a map perhaps with some evidence?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, operating a business limits my rights?

These people are off the charts nuts....

Yes it does since you have chosen to offer a public accommodation, i.e., to provide goods and/or services to the public,

you have chosen to subject yourself to any lawful restrictions or prohibitions on your desire to discriminate.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are doctors required to perform abortions if they believe abortion to be wrong?

Yes, but you knew that all along.

 

[KevinWestern]

All along, the homosexual lobby has been comparing the plight of the American homosexuals to that of the American Civil Right Movement. They believe it is completely synonomous, and thus individuals and businesses making the decision to simply not provide support or services to a gay wedding is paramount to segregation.

Keep in mind that the homosexual population is 1-4% of the population. We are redefining an institution whose soul purpose is to protect children and give legal obligation to men and women who have children--all on the demands of 1-4% of the population. It is not enough to give civil unions, allowing homosexual couples the same benefits as a marriage, they demand we redefine the entire definition of the word.

The left has been waging a war, literally, against the institution of marriage since the 60's. Little by litte, court decision after court decision, inch by inch--chipping away at the foundations of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock had legal consequences once upon a time. A man had no right to a child outside of marriage, and a woman had no right to that man's finances. That court decision opened the flood gates, leading to adoption numbers to drop drastically from the 60's to present day.

As a straight man, will I not be allowed all of the same rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage after gays are too allowed to marry under federal/local law?

Will some of my privileges be going away?

I mean, if 4% of the population made a law (in their favor) that essentially restricted the rights of the other 96% in some way, then I'd probably be upset. However, I don't see that to be the case here.

.

 

[Redfish]

If we truly have freedom in this country, then a business should be able to refuse to sell its products to anyone it chooses, for whatever reason it chooses--------but we do not have true freedom and we all know it.

 

[bodecea]

All along, the homosexual lobby has been comparing the plight of the American homosexuals to that of the American Civil Right Movement. They believe it is completely synonomous, and thus individuals and businesses making the decision to simply not provide support or services to a gay wedding is paramount to segregation.

Keep in mind that the homosexual population is 1-4% of the population. We are redefining an institution whose soul purpose is to protect children and give legal obligation to men and women who have children--all on the demands of 1-4% of the population. It is not enough to give civil unions, allowing homosexual couples the same benefits as a marriage, they demand we redefine the entire definition of the word.

The left has been waging a war, literally, against the institution of marriage since the 60's. Little by litte, court decision after court decision, inch by inch--chipping away at the foundations of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock had legal consequences once upon a time. A man had no right to a child outside of marriage, and a woman had no right to that man's finances. That court decision opened the flood gates, leading to adoption numbers to drop drastically from the 60's to present day.

Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights. But, I remember in the early days of the the Women's Lib Movement, the same argument that how dare women compare their struggle to the black civil rights movement. Some people just have a hard time thinking past their own little box.

 

[Google]

And facts be damned. Upwards of 80% of Americans who contract HIV are homosexual. Just like facts regarding the prevalence of violent crime amoung black youth are racist, the facts regarding HIV are homophobic.

Studies put the number of homosexual men who have HIV at 1 in 5. Study puts HIV rate among gay men at 1 in 5

 

[Redfish]

All along, the homosexual lobby has been comparing the plight of the American homosexuals to that of the American Civil Right Movement. They believe it is completely synonomous, and thus individuals and businesses making the decision to simply not provide support or services to a gay wedding is paramount to segregation.

Keep in mind that the homosexual population is 1-4% of the population. We are redefining an institution whose soul purpose is to protect children and give legal obligation to men and women who have children--all on the demands of 1-4% of the population. It is not enough to give civil unions, allowing homosexual couples the same benefits as a marriage, they demand we redefine the entire definition of the word.

The left has been waging a war, literally, against the institution of marriage since the 60's. Little by litte, court decision after court decision, inch by inch--chipping away at the foundations of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock had legal consequences once upon a time. A man had no right to a child outside of marriage, and a woman had no right to that man's finances. That court decision opened the flood gates, leading to adoption numbers to drop drastically from the 60's to present day.

As a straight man, will I not be allowed all of the same rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage after gays are too allowed to marry under federal/local law?

Will some of my privileges be going away?

.

No, but you would not give those same rights to a polygamist. Why discriminate against them? Thats the point, once the door is opened everyone must be let in.

 

[Google]

All along, the homosexual lobby has been comparing the plight of the American homosexuals to that of the American Civil Right Movement. They believe it is completely synonomous, and thus individuals and businesses making the decision to simply not provide support or services to a gay wedding is paramount to segregation.

Keep in mind that the homosexual population is 1-4% of the population. We are redefining an institution whose soul purpose is to protect children and give legal obligation to men and women who have children--all on the demands of 1-4% of the population. It is not enough to give civil unions, allowing homosexual couples the same benefits as a marriage, they demand we redefine the entire definition of the word.

The left has been waging a war, literally, against the institution of marriage since the 60's. Little by litte, court decision after court decision, inch by inch--chipping away at the foundations of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock had legal consequences once upon a time. A man had no right to a child outside of marriage, and a woman had no right to that man's finances. That court decision opened the flood gates, leading to adoption numbers to drop drastically from the 60's to present day.

Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights. But, I remember in the early days of the the Women's Lib Movement, the same argument that how dare women compare their struggle to the black civil rights movement. Some people just have a hard time thinking past their own little box.

Yes, gays who have all of the same rights as anyone else, minus the institution of marriage is the same thing as the struggle of blacks.

Disgusting, and if you truly cannot determine the differences you are woefully ignorant.