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.
I have nothing against gays and lesbians. However, I do not believe that their rights should be given higher regard in the legal system, nor should they have "exalted status".
Witness the case in which a baker in Oregon refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple-
a. the baker had many gay and lesbian clients, to whom he did not refuse service
b. the baker was a Christian, and making the cake was in conflict with HIS religious beliefs
c. gay marriage was not even legal in Oregon at the time, therefore he was being asked to participate in an illegal activity.
What do libs think about the case? The baker should be "prosecuted" under the Oregon equal portection act. They immediately assume that the baker has no rights, or that the rights of the gays trump those of the baker! If the courts find in favor of the gays, then any citizen could ask the a Muslim vendor be prosecuted for not selling them pork, or a Hindu vendor for not selling them beef! You see....... the idiocy of liberalism is a slippery slope and its conclusions have unexpected consequences.
Now why in the world would the "ACA" focus on "gay and lesbian" issues, when deaths from Hep-C are 100 fold that of Aids and that the leading causes of non trauma death in the US are heart disease and cancer? Is that not a ridiculous misallocation of resources for simple political reasons?
Wake up
That is not "higher regard" it is EQUAL regard.
If a hetero was denied service because they are heterosexual they too would fall under the equal protection law of Oregon.
The whole Muslim selling pork thing was already explained, but I'll break it down for you again.
A bakery sells wedding cakes. That bakery can not discriminate based on orientation, race, religion, or gender who they will sell wedding cakes to. If the bakery does not sell wedding cakes, then they do not sell wedding cakes to ANYONE.
A butcher sells pork. The butcher can not discriminate based on orientation, race, religion, or gender who they will sell pork to. If the butcher does not sell pork, then they do not sell pork to ANYONE.
You haven't even shown that the ACA is focused on gays and lesbians, so your last paragraph is pure fallacy.
How dare this heckler use Alinski tactics against a Democrat!!!!
She should be outted by name and held to public scorn and ridicule.
(Note to Michelle: Grow some skin if you plan more whoring for fellow Democrats.)
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.
If the courts find in favor of the gays, then any citizen could ask the a Muslim vendor be prosecuted for not selling them pork, or a Hindu vendor for not selling them beef! You see....... the idiocy of liberalism is a slippery slope and its conclusions have unexpected consequences.
