Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bible thumpers really should just be ignored. Their arguments about the bible are meaningless and pointless in a secular society. I really wouldn't care if the bible did say to stone gays to death, it's not a valid reason when religion should remain separate from the state.
It's the same for the " choice " argument. I really don't care if it is a choice or it isn't. I want to live in a world that if it were a choice people would be FREE to make that choice without discrimination.
That's pretty much it. If you have strong religious beliefs, you can't open any type of business that intersects with gay weddings. You have to choose between your career and your faith, because a gay couple might occasionally have to find a different baker or photographer. Liberals can blame gun manufacturers (as a contributing party) for mass shootings, but see no connection between a wedding cake and a wedding.
And if you've had one of these businesses for 30 years, the laws have suddenly started to change and forced them to make this decision wether or not to abandon their established business. And in the midst of this, somehow the people suing these small businesses, organizing boycotts and threatening their clientele are treated like the victims?
Another oddity is that in some of these cases ssm is illegal in the states where the business is found liable for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In effect, the business has refused to provide a service for an activity that's illegal in the state where it operates. Odd to me.
Another oddity is that in some of these cases ssm is illegal in the states where the business is found liable for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In effect, the business has refused to provide a service for an activity that's illegal in the state where it operates. Odd to me.
It is not illegal in any state for a couple to have a wedding. I can have a wedding tomorrow, that does not mean that the state will recognize my marriage, but having the wedding ceremony is not illegal.
It is not illegal in any state for a couple to have a wedding. I can have a wedding tomorrow, that does not mean that the state will recognize my marriage, but having the wedding ceremony is not illegal.
Perhaps, but I'm not getting your point? Are you suggesting that is enough and gay people should be happy with that?
It is not illegal in any state for a couple to have a wedding. I can have a wedding tomorrow, that does not mean that the state will recognize my marriage, but having the wedding ceremony is not illegal.
True. Any person or group of people can have a wedding. There must be millions of pretend wedding a year. Even the poster who writes about marrying his cat can legally order a wedding cake for that event. When a business, whether baker, caterer, band, florist, restaurant, etc., is asked to serve a 'wedding,' they can assume it's a pretend wedding for a non-civil marriage.
The arizona law would have made it ok for a fireman to not put out a fire at s gay persons home without repercussion. Democrats pointed this out and even tried to get this law more narrow but republicans voted this down
They felt that gay people should be taxes but not guaranteed service for the taxes they pay.
Provide? No one is saying or has said, even past page 20, that a business should be forced to sell a product they do not offer. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. One for a gay wedding is not a different product.
<snip>
*yawns* And etc, etc... LOL
There is no need -- nor to waste time -- on counter-replying -- to your own original replies. Mainly for the simple fact we will be talking past each other and proceed from totally different premises/visions.
From my angle, it is quite obvious you have no comprehension nor respect for the concept that one's right to control their own business property is one of the fundamental foundations of classical freedom. In fact, it ranks right up there -- not quite, but not far from it -- with a person's right to own and control their own house and property...and have the final say as to who and when guests are permitted within, and what rules must be followed, and etc...
Your counter-arguments are nothing more than the usual "gay rights" and/or far leftist position that either advances the position that private property rights and control of the same must give way to some newly-discovered notion of just what "rights" are....or that some special interest group's hurt-feelings "rights" and/or agenda, supercede that of the business owner to exercise their own Bill of Rights, rights!
Hey? Answer this question, ok? What if a homosexual "couple" own a bakery? Should or should not they have the simple right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple???
PLEASE answer that...in simple terms. Hell, personally? I say they have every right in the world to say no. Would you say different? LOL So what if they didn't? Hell, I would just go elsewhere! As someone mentioned earlier? This situation might be a good business opportunity for some "gay" couple/enterprise to make a lot of money!
OR....? Is the real purpose not so much what ought to be obvious in the realm of private enterprise...but to advance a certain platform...?
And finally, the attempt to link this all with the old "Jim Crow" laws is simply silly and ludicrous. This business did not at all exclude anyone based on color or gender or religion or sexual orientation; the owners simply refused -- on religious grounds -- to make a cake topped with a homosexual "model" atop. Same as the opposite would/should apply, by the very same rationale, from the mirrored direction...
Hey? Answer this question, ok? What if a homosexual "couple" own a bakery? Should or should not they have the simple right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple???
Yes, of course, homosexual bakers should be forced to bake a cake for a heterosexual couple, especially when anti discriminatory laws dictate they do.
33 pages later and no one has touched this one yet. Why is a baker, for example, only targeting same-sex couples and not other Biblical "no-nos." Why?
No doubt about it. The baker is targeting gays for discrimination, simply because he finds the sex acts gays do to be far, far more offensive to his senses than sex acts by heterosexuals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
