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.
My point is that the claim that PA laws are merely requiring people to "do their job" is specious. It's not an argument, or a justification for the law. Yet people keep posting it as though it is.
No, the point of PA laws is to make sure that services are available to everyone. If you are a racist or a homophobe, you can not be in a business that caters to the public.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Lol.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
Point being, it's only "your job" by mandate of the law in question. Circular much?If you're in a State that has PA laws that protect gays and you're serving the public, then its your job to serve gays the same way you would heteros. If you can't......there's community college.
How does a mandate of law make it any more or less a job requirement?
Well, it wasn't required before the law required it. I'm missing the point of the question?
And then the law changed and it does. What is your point?
My point is that the claim that PA laws are merely requiring people to "do their job" is specious. It's not an argument, or a justification for the law. Yet people keep posting it as though it is.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:
Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.
....
There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.
Point being, it's only "your job" by mandate of the law in question. Circular much?
How does a mandate of law make it any more or less a job requirement?
Well, it wasn't required before the law required it. I'm missing the point of the question?
And then the law changed and it does. What is your point?
My point is that the claim that PA laws are merely requiring people to "do their job" is specious. It's not an argument, or a justification for the law. Yet people keep posting it as though it is.
Its not misleading. Laws are among the many things that establish job requirements. IF you're a chef but you don't want to wash your hand when you pee, you're gonna have a problem. You won't be able to do your job. And treating your customers fairly is a job requirement. If you can't treat your gay customers as well as your straight ones, you can't do your job in States like Oregon.
That the job requirement is the product of a law is irrelevant. That the law didn't exist since the dawn of time, eternal and unchanging is irrelevant. The law is. The job requirement is. And if you can't meet the requirements of a job because of your religion, find a new job.
We had this discussion before, 50 first dates.We don't know that. So far, instances of bigots like you targeting Christian businesses for financial ruin have been limited. Christians don't believe it's right to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle even if they tolerate it and any practicing Christian will act according to their conscience. Most are lying low hoping that hateful, intolerant bigot assholes like you won't find them.bigot
[big-uh t]
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
There it is. You demand that everyone accept and accommodate homosexuals, not tolerating any disagreement or dissent.
That makes you a bigot.
It is ironic, that these people in their own actions, make themselves into the very thing they claim to be opposing.
They have religious freedom. their business does not. their business broke the laws of Oregon. Which are more important that God's Laws because Oregon actually has a real enforcement arm.
That's your opinion. We fear the living G-d more than your secular laws. Again, if Christian are willing to die for their faith, as we've seen around the world.... what exactly do you think you are going to do to stop us?
Nothing.
PLENTY of good Christian people open businesses and do not discriminate against others. MOST Christians aren't like you. They are nice and good people.
Why won't Christians follow the Bible? Why won't Christians obey the authority put in place by God?
Romans 13
13 Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government. There isn’t any authority unless it comes from God, and the authorities that are there have been put in place by God.
3 The authorities don’t frighten people who are doing the right thing. Rather, they frighten people who are doing wrong. Would you rather not be afraid of authority? Do what’s right, and you will receive its approval.
4 It is God’s servant given for your benefit. But if you do what’s wrong, be afraid because it doesn’t have weapons to enforce the law for nothing. It is God’s servant put in place to carry out his punishment on those who do what is wrong.
5 That is why it is necessary to place yourself under the government’s authority, not only to avoid God’s punishment but also for the sake of your conscience. 6 You should also pay taxes for the same reason, because the authorities are God’s assistants, concerned with this very thing.
7 So pay everyone what you owe them. Pay the taxes you owe, pay the duties you are charged, give respect to those you should respect, and honor those you should honor.
I showed you in Acts where the apostles disobeyed the law when it conflicted with God's commandments. Perhaps I need to make you a video to watch every morning you wake up.
Bigoted laws that are against freedom of religion you mean? I know liberals love those laws.Whose the whiny one, the one that stood up for what they believed in or the ones suing cause they got there feeling hurtObey the law, or face the consequences, and not like a whiny little bitch either.$135,000 because of a cake and not going against your conscience. Welcome to Liberal Land!
View attachment 45030
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The whiny ones are the ones who are whining because they broke the law- and now are facing the consequences.
No special exemption from the law just because you are Christian.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:
Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.
....
There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.
The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.
And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.
The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.
But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.
Maybe in your Nazi Bible- but in the New Testament Paul is very clear- God is the one who give authority to the authorities- and Christians who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done
Romans 13Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Obey Rulers
13 Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power.
2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished.
3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it.
4 After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you.
If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. 5 But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger.
Acts 5:29 - Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Then according to Paul- and the New Testament- Christians should obey authority- since all authority comes from God.
People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished.
Yes, we all agree on that. We should obey the law as much as is possible. But that doesn't change that there is a limit. The limit, is when the law violates G-d's word. Acts 5:29, is exactly that point.
.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
If locker rooms are designated for married couples, maybe then you will have a case. But locker rooms are generally segregated by gender.
If you want to pursue your dream of gender neutral locker rooms- then just go pursued the legislature.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:
Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.
....
There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.
The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.
And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.
The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.
I'm not confused. I don't really care about which groups are on board. The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:
Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.
....
There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.
The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.
And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.
The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.
I'm not confused. I don't really care about which groups are on board. The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.
Then your argument is with the law- not with the persons who happen to be the ones asking for protection under the law now.
Remember PA laws have been around for 50 years. These threads complaining about PA laws only exist because some of those PA laws also protect homosexuals from discrimination.
No one complaining about PA laws in the states that don't include homosexuals in the protections from discrimination.
How does a mandate of law make it any more or less a job requirement?
Well, it wasn't required before the law required it. I'm missing the point of the question?
And then the law changed and it does. What is your point?
My point is that the claim that PA laws are merely requiring people to "do their job" is specious. It's not an argument, or a justification for the law. Yet people keep posting it as though it is.
Its not misleading. Laws are among the many things that establish job requirements. IF you're a chef but you don't want to wash your hand when you pee, you're gonna have a problem. You won't be able to do your job. And treating your customers fairly is a job requirement. If you can't treat your gay customers as well as your straight ones, you can't do your job in States like Oregon.
That the job requirement is the product of a law is irrelevant. That the law didn't exist since the dawn of time, eternal and unchanging is irrelevant. The law is. The job requirement is. And if you can't meet the requirements of a job because of your religion, find a new job.
The laws in question add to the requirements of the job, and we're discussing whether they should or not.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
That is a stupid analogy. Both men and women are allowed to attend and receive the product. That does not have to include bathroom privileges, as long as each HAS a designated bathroom.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
That is a stupid analogy. Both men and women are allowed to attend and receive the product. That does not have to include bathroom privileges, as long as each HAS a designated bathroom.
Now your arguing SEPERATE but EQUAL?
PA laws are specific. You can't discriminate based on gender. The heterosexual male is being denied access even though he is similar to the lesbians.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
If locker rooms are designated for married couples, maybe then you will have a case. But locker rooms are generally segregated by gender.
If you want to pursue your dream of gender neutral locker rooms- then just go pursued the legislature.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
If locker rooms are designated for married couples, maybe then you will have a case. But locker rooms are generally segregated by gender.
If you want to pursue your dream of gender neutral locker rooms- then just go pursued the legislature.
Oh, I see, separate but equal IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.
But then, it is not the couple being dioscriminated against, it's just the straight male.
PA laws prohibit the refusal by business owners, access to a use based on gender.
You either agree with the law in total, or not?
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
That is a stupid analogy. Both men and women are allowed to attend and receive the product. That does not have to include bathroom privileges, as long as each HAS a designated bathroom.
Now your arguing SEPERATE but EQUAL?
PA laws are specific. You can't discriminate based on gender. The heterosexual male is being denied access even though he is similar to the lesbians.
Sexual attraction isnt' the standard of bathrooms. Gender is.
Rendering your entire analogy moot, troll.
Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.
Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?
Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.
I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.
Sounds like discrimination to me.
Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........
Morality!
If locker rooms are designated for married couples, maybe then you will have a case. But locker rooms are generally segregated by gender.
If you want to pursue your dream of gender neutral locker rooms- then just go pursued the legislature.
Oh, I see, separate but equal IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.
But then, it is not the couple being dioscriminated against, it's just the straight male.
PA laws prohibit the refusal by business owners, access to a use based on gender.
You either agree with the law in total, or not?
You're trolling. As you're demanding that bathrooms be based on sexual attraction. Merely a different version of the standard you're now attacking.
