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.
We can't as human beings possibly like EVERY thing. To refuse service to someone because they find your behavior unpleasant or at worst bad - is like forcing someone to like strawberry when they prefer chocolate. IF this gay stylist has any compassion...tolerance and human sympathy he will serve anyone despite their personal beliefs. People tolerate and accept gays...maybe it's time gays tolerated and respected those who disagree with them?
Tolerance and respect are two-way streets... and considering this act was CLEARLY in response to the proposed AZ bill, you are basically blaming the (intended) victim here. That's like saying a holocaust survivor should be "tolerant and respectful" towards a former Nazi soldier, to give an extreme analogy. Sure, it would be nice to be the "bigger person," but should they be shamed if they're retaliatory instead?
How do you know this? And by the way, disagreeing with homosexuals as they demand "their right to marry" does not make one "anti-"gay."" It means we disagree that marriage should be anything other than between a man and a woman. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Ohhhhhhh, so this homosexual hair dresser is free to discriminate against the governor! I get it.
So, "equality" exists for some people, but not for others. A person can refuse service to another person if that person does not belong to the right group. A baker cannot refuse to offer his services to two homos because they are a privileged group. How nice.
Is that how "equality" works? Thanks for clarifying how liberals view "equality." I knew this "equality" meme was bull!
Some people are more equal than others, and with the current administration that extends to ideology/ political thought. Those who differ in their views are running the risk of being scrutinized, to put it mildly.
We've seen demonstrated in so many ways recently how the power of the IRS or the DOJ can be misused.
Some people are more equal than others, and with the current administration that extends to ideology/ political thought. Those who differ in their views are running the risk of being scrutinized, to put it mildly.
We've seen demonstrated in so many ways recently how the power of the IRS or the DOJ can be misused.
This has always been the case, though, just in a different direction... and now that the "majority" is becoming the "oppressed," they are none too happy about it! While I don't normally rejoice in anyone's suffering, I do admit it's somewhat amusing to witness (especially considering my background).
The correct term is HETEROSEXUAL or REGULAR. "Straight" is for rulers and yardsticks!
Pretty sure I have seen you argue against gay marriage based on definitions (of marriage), if not I have seen that argument used by anti-SSM folks on the forum... and according to both the Harper Collins & Random House dictionaries, among others I'm sure, the word "straight" actually IS defined as heterosexual.
So now is the time you choose to ignore dictionaries, and make up your own definitions? Oh, and "regular" has no definitions related to sexual orientation - unless you think gay people have irregular bowel movements? LOL
This has always been the case, though, just in a different direction... and now that the "majority" is becoming the "oppressed," they are none too happy about it! While I don't normally rejoice in anyone's suffering, I do admit it's somewhat amusing to witness (especially considering my background).
I find that sentiment troubling, especially as you say in view of your background, that you would be amused that any group is oppressed.
And by the way, disagreeing with homosexuals as they demand "their right to marry" does not make one "anti-"gay."" It means we disagree that marriage should be anything other than between a man and a woman. Period.
This needs repeating. I would rep you again but I’ve used my limit for now.
I find that sentiment troubling, especially as you say in view of your background, that you would be amused that any group is oppressed.
No, I didn't say that - and thanks for the rep point, lol.
Since nobody is actually being "oppressed" (note I used quotation marks in both the original & this post) in the situation I was referring to, I am not amused at oppression. What I meant was that it's amusing to see how people react when THEIR bigotry is thrown back in their face, which was clearly the point this hairdresser was trying to make. What group are they oppressing, Governors from Arizona?
Muslim taxi driver can refuse Christian passenger with can of beer.
Muslim truck drivers can refuse doing their job because truck contains alcohol.
Homosexual hairdresser can refuse to cut hair of anti homosexual person.
Christian baker must bake cake for homosexual couple.
Christian photographer must take photos of homosexual couple.
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.
