Which "side" of the "fence" are you on?

[martybegan]

They were punished for butt hurt.

And it's not a "crime" it's a civil violation. There is a difference.

You are right. We should make homophobia a crime. That would solve a lot of problems.

I also think that we should revoke the tax exemption for any church that preaches homophobia. It will be AMAZING how fast "God" changes his mind.

So basically ThoughtCrime, wonderful....

And of course your inane religious bigotry shines through....

 

[JoeB131]

Again you got one side fighting against a real injustice and the other who made up a lie and is now trying to enforce the lie they have made themselves believe.

One side is fighting for equality and the other side is fighting for supremacy.

Equality really? but you have to be careful hiding behind the premise of equality. The murderous POL POT revolution began as something FOR the people. Basically it was a social justice movement.
Now you have this well meaning leftist movement here in the US and what they do is take American society as a whole and call it unjust, and unequal. I'm white, therefore I am privileged, and by all accounts that is an injustice. I am alive and white and have an unfair advantage, so I must be corrected. That is a microcosm, and just off the top of my head but there are many other things involving political correctness that is being turned into an equality issue.
I'm sorry but I'm seeing this movement as having created a never ending grievance. Today, its a few statues, then it will be all of them. Then it will be changing the names of streets, parks, buildings, etc and it will all have been done in the name of fairness for the people. But what most of us rational people you might call righties are looking at is, where does it stop? who gets to make the definition of what is offensive and what is not offensive? and is one persons offense more righteous than the others? Then you have the silencing and shouting down of opposing viewpoints. That is also very dangerous, because again. Who gets to decide?
I'm against tearing down of these monuments because that in itself is very symbolic of the INTOLERANCE that is taking over this country today. What ever happened to liberals that they want to start the civil war all over again?
Movements like this start out small but end up sowing hatred where it was never necessary to do. Many major genocides in history started out as being for the people. And just because someone calls them self an environmentalist doesn't make them a good person and they can be mentally imbalanced.

 

[JoeB131]

So basically ThoughtCrime, wonderful....

Hey, try calling a gay coworker a faggot at work today... see how fast you get fired. We need that in society at large.

And of course your inane religious bigotry shines through...

Here's the thing. Nobody really ever agrees to get thrown to the lions. You tell the God-hucksters they have to pay money to hate on the gays, you will be amazed how fast they stop hating gays.

 

[martybegan]

So basically ThoughtCrime, wonderful....

Hey, try calling a gay coworker a faggot at work today... see how fast you get fired. We need that in society at large.

And of course your inane religious bigotry shines through...

Here's the thing. Nobody really ever agrees to get thrown to the lions. You tell the God-hucksters they have to pay money to hate on the gays, you will be amazed how fast they stop hating gays.

Why would I ever do that? Unlike you I don't have any hatred of others unless they are jackasses.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would I ever do that? Unlike you I don't have any hatred of others unless they are jackasses.

Given your spirited defense of the Kleins, I suspect you use that word a lot. Just not anywhere that you['ll suffer consequences. But you'll cheer on the Jackass who did.

 

[martybegan]

Why would I ever do that? Unlike you I don't have any hatred of others unless they are jackasses.

Given your spirited defense of the Kleins, I suspect you use that word a lot. Just not anywhere that you['ll suffer consequences. But you'll cheer on the Jackass who did.

I would never deny services to anyone, but unlike you I don't force my beliefs on others unless absolutely nessasary.

 

[JoeB131]

I would never deny services to anyone, but unlike you I don't force my beliefs on others unless absolutely nessasary.

Neither do I. This case it was necessary. Not because I think you are going to change Wifebeater 's mind. He's a hateful bigot. But you are going to get the next guy to think twice about doing something stupid.

 

[martybegan]

I would never deny services to anyone, but unlike you I don't force my beliefs on others unless absolutely nessasary.

Neither do I. This case it was necessary. Not because I think you are going to change Wifebeater 's mind. He's a hateful bigot. But you are going to get the next guy to think twice about doing something stupid.

No it wasn't nessasary, the couple could have spent 30 minutes finding another baker. At most the State could require them to put up a sign or a note on their website detailing what events they provide services for.

 

[JoeB131]

No it wasn't nessasary, the couple could have spent 30 minutes finding another baker. At most the State could require them to put up a sign or a note on their website detailing what events they provide services for.

And what deterrent effect would that have had?

The Kliens are out of business and nobody else is going to repeat their mistake. Mission Accomplished

 

[martybegan]

No it wasn't nessasary, the couple could have spent 30 minutes finding another baker. At most the State could require them to put up a sign or a note on their website detailing what events they provide services for.

And what deterrent effect would that have had?

The Kliens are out of business and nobody else is going to repeat their mistake. Mission Accomplished

Well the SC has a case coming up that could render all this moot.

The deterrent is it would let the market handle it, not some government ass hat.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe Congress may not Regulate well, forms of Commerce?

They can't override a person's right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. and even then, they have to use the least invasive method possible to rectify the situation.

You are referring to privileges and immunities. For-profit establishment means profit is a legal requirement, not social morals.

Actually it isn't a requirement to make a profit as a for profit. Most people make sure their business breaks even or shows a loss via "creative accounting".

And when i refer to free exercise I refer to a right, granted by the 1st amendment.

Only tax avoiders do that; not Good tax paying citizens.

Anyone that doesn't take any deduction they are legally entitled to is an idiot.

Then, stop blaming the poor for Only paying the taxes we are legally obligated to pay.

 

[danielpalos]

And when i refer to free exercise I refer to a right, granted by the 1st amendment.

Again, buddy... businesses don't have religions. And if we start letting people ignore the law because their magic friend in the sky says so, we are in for a lot of chaos.

People are part of businesses, and they still have rights. Stop trying to pretend that isn't the case.

The law shouldn't be punishing them for butt hurt in the first place.

The law is, for-profit firms are required to make a profit, not indulge morals, on a for-profit basis.

 

[JoeB131]

Well the SC has a case coming up that could render all this moot.

The deterrent is it would let the market handle it, not some government ass hat.

It won't. Kennedy isn't going to make homophobia okay... I'm not sure why you homophobes keep thinking SCOTUS is going to save your pet bigotries.

 

[martybegan]

They can't override a person's right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. and even then, they have to use the least invasive method possible to rectify the situation.

You are referring to privileges and immunities. For-profit establishment means profit is a legal requirement, not social morals.

Actually it isn't a requirement to make a profit as a for profit. Most people make sure their business breaks even or shows a loss via "creative accounting".

And when i refer to free exercise I refer to a right, granted by the 1st amendment.

Only tax avoiders do that; not Good tax paying citizens.

Anyone that doesn't take any deduction they are legally entitled to is an idiot.

Then, stop blaming the poor for Only paying the taxes we are legally obligated to pay.

When have I blamed the poor for crappy tax policy?

 

[martybegan]

And when i refer to free exercise I refer to a right, granted by the 1st amendment.

Again, buddy... businesses don't have religions. And if we start letting people ignore the law because their magic friend in the sky says so, we are in for a lot of chaos.

People are part of businesses, and they still have rights. Stop trying to pretend that isn't the case.

The law shouldn't be punishing them for butt hurt in the first place.

The law is, for-profit firms are required to make a profit, not indulge morals, on a for-profit basis.

What law says that?

 

[martybegan]

Well the SC has a case coming up that could render all this moot.

The deterrent is it would let the market handle it, not some government ass hat.

It won't. Kennedy isn't going to make homophobia okay... I'm not sure why you homophobes keep thinking SCOTUS is going to save your pet bigotries.

Again, if they were willing to serve them as a point of sale item, just not as a contracted service for a wedding, how is that homophobia?

 

[danielpalos]

People are part of businesses, and they still have rights. Stop trying to pretend that isn't the case.

The law shouldn't be punishing them for butt hurt in the first place.

They weren't punished for butthurt. They were punished for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is a crime in Oregon.

They were punished for butt hurt.

And it's not a "crime" it's a civil violation. There is a difference.

Like, "crossing without inspection"?

 

[martybegan]

People are part of businesses, and they still have rights. Stop trying to pretend that isn't the case.

The law shouldn't be punishing them for butt hurt in the first place.

They weren't punished for butthurt. They were punished for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is a crime in Oregon.

They were punished for butt hurt.

And it's not a "crime" it's a civil violation. There is a difference.

Like, "crossing without inspection"?

No, like being a civil code violation, not a criminal code violation.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, if they were willing to serve them as a point of sale item, just not as a contracted service for a wedding, how is that homophobia?

Because the contracted service was related directly to their sexuality.

Shit, I don't know which of my customers are gay or straight unless they tell me.

Go back and read the transcript. The Wifebeater didn't know they were gay until Bowman (I think it was Bowman) told him there were "Two Brides". Then he went off on his bible thumping,homophobic crazy.

 

[martybegan]

Again, if they were willing to serve them as a point of sale item, just not as a contracted service for a wedding, how is that homophobia?

Because the contracted service was related directly to their sexuality.

Shit, I don't know which of my customers are gay or straight unless they tell me.

Go back and read the transcript. The Wifebeater didn't know they were gay until Bowman (I think it was Bowman) told him there were "Two Brides". Then he went off on his bible thumping,homophobic crazy.

You would know if you were working their wedding. The point is they did not deny Point of sale services, they just didn't want to participate in the wedding by supplying the cake.

PA laws cover the point of sale transaction, not the contracted service, and if the SC is not crazy, that's how they will vote on the upcoming case.