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.
Why would I know or even care what some guy in a bakery feels? You sell cakes? Good, I need a cake. Here's some money for the cake. Now give me my cake.
Well you would know when they said no to begin with and why.
In the military we knew which establishments didn't like Military types. Some guys insisted on going to those places.
Some like myself elected to go to the places that had no issue with Military types. I preferred to spend my money where I was appreciated and not hated.
Now would I sue a bar because they didn't want to serve me because I am a vet? No. I simply wouldn't spend my money there.
For me the issue isn't because a gay couple won. The issue is that someone was forced to make a damned cake. I believe in the freedom to accept a customer or decline a customer. Your reasons don't matter to me. You risk losing customers and your livelihood by doing so. I tell my Military friends you did me wrong and they boycott your establishment. Their nonmilitary friends also boycott your establishment.
We don't need a judge taking away freedoms.
If I owned a store and a man convicted of ID theft walked in, I would throw him out.
It seems to me the gay couple have a choice. There are many bakeries. I wouldn't want a cake made by anyone who hated me. I would be wondering what extras were added to the mix.
Its based on thie regilous belief and like some do not serve or cook pork its none of governments business. Its just less freedom of religion;plian and simple.Needs to be challenged in federal court.
Horribly flawed analogy. Choosing not to carry a product is very different than discriminating against a group of people.
Its based on thie regilous belief and like some do not serve or cook pork its none of governments business. Its just less freedom of religion;plian and simple.Needs to be challenged in federal court.
No one is forcing anyone to sell pork or wedding cakes, but IF the business CHOOSES to sell pork or wedding cakes they can not discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or the sexual orientation of the person they sell pork or wedding cakes to.
If the baker has religious issues with selling wedding cakes to everyone, then he should not sell wedding cakes. Problem solved.
Government has the court on their side and can enforce the laws they make no matter if it goes against your religious belief.
Government can change what's ethical, moral, legal or illegal with the swipe of a pen.
That's the way it is, like it or not.
Abortion was illegal once and is now legal with the swipe of a pen.
Pot was illegal in all states but is now legal in some with the swipe of a pen.
Blacks were considered property and then became "human" with the swipe of a pen.
Gays are now legally accepted and protected by the swipe of a pen.
This is how society evolves..one swipe of a pen at a time and then lots of legal proceedings.
Its based on thie regilous belief and like some do not serve or cook pork its none of governments business. Its just less freedom of religion;plian and simple.Needs to be challenged in federal court.
A store that doesn't sell pork doesn't sell it to ANYONE. The owner doesn't say "I'll sell it to you, but not to you", which is exactly what this bakery owner did.
The historical kind. The distinction you're making is the same one I was.
But this thread isn't about marriage equality, it's about anti-discrimination law. Sorry to have nudged us off-topic.
You insinuate men historically raped their wives...you are a feminist. If a woman didn't want to be married to a man - yes, sex was a reason to marry years ago - she didn't have to.
Define how a man rapes his wife as I don't subscribe to the mindset.
The Supremacy Clause doesn't affect this. Discrimination over sexual orientation isn't addressed by federal law, but it's prohibited by this particular state law. Many states have anti-discrimination laws that apply to sexual orientation, some to gender identity.
Sexual orientation isn't the issue.
The issue is the free exercise of religion and that is definitely addressed by the US Constitution.
You insinuate men historically raped their wives...you are a feminist. If a woman didn't want to be married to a man - yes, sex was a reason to marry years ago - she didn't have to.
Define how a man rapes his wife as I don't subscribe to the mindset.
Are you not a feminist? Do you believe in a return to coverture?
The issue is the free exercise of religion and that is definitely addressed by the US Constitution.
So if I have a drivers license, and my personal religious beliefs say speed is godly, I don't have to follow the speed limit? Freedom of religion. Right?
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.
