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.
Chick Filet didnt deny services to gays, but that didnt stop left wing kooks from throwing a temper tantrum, did it? Werent they being served?
No one said that CFA was refusing service to anyone. People disagreed with the donations that the company made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Did you fight to change the laws so gays cant discriminate against non gays? I bet you didnt..
Sexual orientation INCLUDES heterosexuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But you didnt address the question, lacking a law, should a gay receive a cake when they order one?
Lacking a law the decision would be up to the shop owner. Both bakery cases have happened in states that include sexual orientation in their anti discrimination laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They could have been refused service for wearing a Steeler shirt for all it matters.
Except for the fact that the bakery owners stated the reason that they were being denied service was that they were a same sex couple getting married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Either its ok to demand people be serviced at a business open to the public, or private property rights hold superior laws and the owner gets to decide. You cant have it both ways without being hypocritical.
Whatever. You get on getting all anti discrimination laws removed, and I will keep fighting to get sexual orientation added. Let's see who gets there first.
What happened to the days when going to the bathroom and other bodily acts was private....sex is supposed to be private...we are all oriented differently sexually. There are a million variations of how we perceive sex personally. Why has this certain orientation become so not worthy......This business of sexual orientation is becoming tiresome. Maybe ALL of us should practice some old fashioned privacy again.
What happened to the days when going to the bathroom and other bodily acts was private....sex is supposed to be private...we are all oriented differently sexually. There are a million variations of how we perceive sex personally. Why has this certain orientation become so not worthy......This business of sexual orientation is becoming tiresome. Maybe ALL of us should practice some old fashioned privacy again.
No one is having sex in the bakery, so that isn't a problem.
No one said that CFA was refusing service to anyone. People disagreed with the donations that the company made..
Actually they disagreed with a comment the son made, which started all of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Sexual orientation INCLUDES heterosexuals.
But the guy wasnt denied service as you continue to point out due to being a heterosexual, was he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Lacking a law the decision would be up to the shop owner. Both bakery cases have happened in states that include sexual orientation in their anti discrimination laws.
But slavery at one point was legal, so because the law said it was ok, that was fine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Except for the fact that the bakery owners stated the reason that they were being denied service was that they were a same sex couple getting married.
But as a property owner, what makes a poll on who should be allowed in that property (which is really what the passage of some law actually represents), more important than property right laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Whatever. You get on getting all anti discrimination laws removed, and I will keep fighting to get sexual orientation added. Let's see who gets there first.
I didnt once suggest we should remove anti discrimination laws. I questioned why they were more important than property right laws, and if they were more important, then shouldnt the haircutter been required to cut the governors hair?
Making excuses that the governor was hetrosexual, or that laws didnt exist so it was ok to discriminate against people for political beliefes is just that.. an excuse..
The argument used to pass the anti discrimiantion laws in regards to businesses, is that its a place of business, and open to the public, and its not possible to weed out individuals, like gays, without polling individuals who enter, so you have to allow everyone.
Well if thats true, then you have to allow everyone, and allowing you to pick and choose based upon political beliefs is also discrimination and hypocritical if you think its ok.
No one is having sex in the bakery, so that isn't a problem.
I really do not perceive a problem. It is just a lot to do about nothing....if frogs could talk and chat with each other would they be discussing orientation....seems human beings have to much time on their hands and involve themselves with causes and issues that really mean nothing. Homosexuality has been practiced by a small segment of humanity for thousands of years....what`s the big deal these days.......I just wish we could move on to something of value like hunger and poverty and real human rights and justice....The gay issue is flighty and superficial.
I really do not perceive a problem. It is just a lot to do about nothing....if frogs could talk and chat with each other would they be discussing orientation....seems human beings have to much time on their hands and involve themselves with causes and issues that really mean nothing. Homosexuality has been practiced by a small segment of humanity for thousands of years....what`s the big deal these days.......I just wish we could move on to something of value like hunger and poverty and real human rights and justice....The gay issue is flighty and superficial.
."Homosexuality has been practiced by a small segment of humanity for thousands of years "
So has polygamy.
Strange that the US Govt decided to start sanctioning one of those practices by recognizing gay marriage.
Actually they disagreed with a comment the son made, which started all of it.
No, we disagreed with the funding to anti gay groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But the guy wasnt denied service as you continue to point out due to being a heterosexual, was he?
Nope. SHE was denied service based on political views, which is not a protected class in NM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But slavery at one point was legal, so because the law said it was ok, that was fine?
And people fought against it, just like people today fight against laws they disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But as a property owner, what makes a poll on who should be allowed in that property (which is really what the passage of some law actually represents), more important than property right laws?
There are no laws that say you have to allow anyone on your personal property UNLESS you CHOOSE to open that property as a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I didnt once suggest we should remove anti discrimination laws. I questioned why they were more important than property right laws, and if they were more important, then shouldnt the haircutter been required to cut the governors hair?
If political views were a protected class in NM than the stylest should have cut the governors hair, but political views are not protected in NM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Making excuses that the governor was hetrosexual, or that laws didnt exist so it was ok to discriminate against people for political beliefes is just that.. an excuse..
I said in my very first post that the stylest should have cut the governors hair and be the bigger person, but the laws of the state allows the stylest to refuse service based on political views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The argument used to pass the anti discrimiantion laws in regards to businesses, is that its a place of business, and open to the public, and its not possible to weed out individuals, like gays, without polling individuals who enter, so you have to allow everyone.
Well if thats true, then you have to allow everyone, and allowing you to pick and choose based upon political beliefs is also discrimination and hypocritical if you think its ok.
Currently some classifications are included in anti discrimination laws, and some are not. If you want the laws changed to outlaw refusal of service period, then get on that. I can see that there are certain instances that refusal is important. Belligerent people can and should be kicked out. Drunks should be refused more alcohol. People causing a disruption of business should be removed. etc
."Homosexuality has been practiced by a small segment of humanity for thousands of years "
So has polygamy.
Strange that the US Govt decided to start sanctioning one of those practices by recognizing gay marriage.
Gay marriage is politically useful to our masters...polygamy is not...It was outlawed not because of moral grounds but for political reasons...You can NOT have a patriarch with 50 children who by voting age...become a block vote...that is to much.
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.
