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'd say it's quite the opposite. Decent God fearing people in this country are absolutely fed up with the gay agenda and are pushing back.
Amen. The homosexual militant bullies have sealed their fate with their unending bullying destroying good, decent hard working people's livelihood and eliminating their means of putting food on the table to feed their families. All because they didn't get a blessed cake. They didn't get a blessed dress. Good God Almighty this atrocity will stop and they shall be forever vanquished.
Last edited by JobZombie; 08-12-2014 at 08:32 AM..
Just haveta post the highlights of the past few pages.....
Excellent points, guys
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Freedom to serve or not serve whomever you wish is freedom.
Government mandating that you must serve all is tyranny.
I have a small business and do not discriminate based on anything except location.
Again, get back to me when halal meat stores are forced to sell pork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Yes, they should. If the person who owns the property does not want you on the property for any reason whatsoever, then you should be required to leave the property.
Nobody should be required to change their attitudes. This is supposed to be a free country. That means you should be allowed to have whatever attitude you want, regardless of whether that attitude is offensive to unacceptable to others.
That's right, you don't get to do that. But you don't get to do that because the law says you don't. Not because of any moral or ethical requirement. At one point the law said that slavery was legal. That didn't make slavery right. A law which requires one private citizen to have dealings with another private citizen against his will is not a moral law. The reason why that citizen doesn't wish to deal with the other one may indeed be completely repugnant, but that's irrelevant. Freedom is freedom all the time, not only when it is warm and fuzzy. Anti-discrimination laws which give everyone equality under the law are just and proper. But anti-discrimination laws which affect the private sector are unethical in a free society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
And is the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum, but one with no adult involved to admonish and say that it will not be tolerated. Very one-sided and harmful to the woman/business being targeted, without any chance for her to defend in the same medium at the same time. It's amazing that a mere 1.6% of the population is allowed to behave like this and have such a disproportionate impact. And even more amazing that they are taken seriously. Too many people still subscribe to the theory that "If it's on the InterWebz it must be true - they wouldn't allow it if it wuzn't!"
When my child was young, tantrums were dealth with by a few quick swats and a timeout. The bad behavior quickly abated and was not repeated. In this case it's rewarded by all the publicity, drama which these kind of people thrive upon. Pathetic.
I think gays are in the position that Custer was in at the Little Big Horn. Custer was supremely cocky and couldn't comprehend the level of resistance he was facing. People are fed up with gay everything.
They irreversibly crossed the line when they started bullying and attacking people of faith and the small Mom and Pop establishments. Easy targets in their sick little twisted minds. As they demonstrate time and again no aptitude, desire or willingness for compromise so shall their fate be decided accordingly.
I just do not drill in all areas or, for just anyone.
I just told two people no today.
You can tell people no, that's fine, of course. But are you basing that decision on a reasonable set of criteria - for example are they being unrealistic in their expectations, do they have enough money, do they have a reputation for being unable to pay their bills, are they difficult to work with, would they make your life miserable while doing the job?
I highly doubt it was because they were gay, a minority, disabled, or other characteristic that is an indisputable part of their physical being and has nothing to do with their ability to fulfill their side of the contract between the parties.
to swim - to eat - to play golf - to rent an apartment - to buy a house - to go to school.
This involves a cake and a dress. Is it really that inconvenient of a hardship to go to the other bridal shop or the baker next door and leave good, decent hardworking people alone to put food on their tables?
You can tell people no, that's fine, of course. But are you basing that decision on a reasonable set of criteria - for example are they being unrealistic in their expectations, do they have enough money, do they have a reputation for being unable to pay their bills, are they difficult to work with, would they make your life miserable while doing the job?
I highly doubt it was because they were gay, a minority, disabled, or other characteristic that is an indisputable part of their physical being and has nothing to do with their ability to fulfill their side of the contract between the parties.
Amen. The homosexual militant bullies have sealed their fate with their unending bullying destroying good, decent hard working people's livelihood and eliminating their means of putting food on the table to feed their families. All because they didn't get a blessed cake. They didn't get a blessed dress. God God Almighty this atrocity will stop and they shall be forever vanquished.
Wow what power they have! The business can't be that hard up if they're refusing paying customers, who are asking for a dress and not the blessing of the proprietor. Do they provide dresses for second marriages, to former adulterers, are the brides virgins? Why don't these things matter? They also undermine the blessed sanctity of marriage.
If they're going to be the moral arbiter of who wears their white down the aisle, then it would make sense for them to judge all supposedly ungodly behavior, no?
Never said that the bridal shop owner broke the law. They have the right to refuse service, lesbian has the right to publicize her experience on social media network. They both (business and the customer) are subject to public opinions.
Excellent point. That's right, you didn't get your blessed little dress so you must ruin these people and destroy their livelihood. Make them pay – all over a screwed up blessed little dress those who transgressed you must starve. Just go to the other bridal shop. You might just appreciate the friends and allies you cultivate by doing so.
Wow what power they have! The business can't be that hard up if they're refusing paying customers, who are asking for a dress and not the blessing of the proprietor. Do they provide dresses for second marriages, to former adulterers, are the brides virgins? Why don't these things matter? They also undermine the blessed sanctity of marriage.
If they're going to be the moral arbiter of who wears their white down the aisle, then it would make sense for them to judge all supposedly ungodly behavior, no?
Not all wedding dress are white.
The last wedding we attended the bride wore a beautiful pink wedding grown.
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.
