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.
They can deny it because it is hate speech. Gays are not asking florist to make a wreath that says God Hates Breeders. So in effect it's a stupid analogy.
Thanks for the kind clarification. Can you please tell me which states allow a "hate speech" exemption that permits discrimination against a religious group, and provide a legal definition of hate speech. I find your description of my analogy as "stupid" to be hate speech.
It depends. If they deny them because they are "Christians" then it is discrimination. My guess is they will claim to deny them because they are homophobic and homophobia is not protected.
So the solution is to lie about one's true motives?
You have the right to associate with who you want. Christians and Islam does not accept Sodomites.
Skin color is not a choice for a person, SO if a Black person does not choose to associate with Chinese people THERE IS NO PENALTY IS THERE???
This is the same concept. Islam and Christians choose not to associate with anyone choosing to be a "perversion of nature." The fact that Sodomites in power ARE forcing sodomite associations on people who do not want to associate with them and provide them THEIR LABOR, does not make the law just. In fact it is disenfranchising other people in favor of them. NOT GOOD.
It took middle of the road people like me to join forces with people who never,ever accepted them on any terms. These people are going to find themselves totally isolated, eventually if they start THEIR OVERTHE TOP INTOLERANCE OF OTHERS.
Don't equate choice of switching birth gender to choice gender with natural birth of skin color and ethnicity, that is just pure ignorant and perverse of facts. Go ask some Black pastors and Black folks on this: They all will tell you your position is pure bull*rap. Give it up. You have no game.
Haha. You actually think being gay is a choice? Anyway, so what yer saying is that if being black was a choice, it'd be okay to discriminate against them?
No and it doesn't prevent her from selling flowers to gays...which she did to this very customer for over 9 years. The issue here is that her faith informs her that homosexuality is a sin and therefore, creating floral arrangements in celebration of homosexuality goes against her faith.
I am very proud of Barronelle. I have donated to her defense fund and respect her for standing strong on her faith and principles!!
You mean her INTERPRETATION of her faith, right? Because I know that there's a plethora of gay Christians out there. A whole lot of them. I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ would be for gay marriage anyway, seeing as he was a loving and tolerant dude. I'm also pretty sure he'd be disgusted with the way religious figures have been handling little boys, though. And the way people use his name as an excuse to be hateful and spiteful.
Moreover, there is a huge difference between "discrimination" against minorities etc vs gays. Minorities are born that way. Gays are not. Gays CHOOSE to pack chocolate and rub their sausage links together. No one puts a gun to their head and DNA, I don't care what drudged-up research tries to suggest, has nothing to do with it. They CHOOSE to do that, the same way a prostitute chooses to sell her body to a man for money--do we celebrate that?
Having to suppress your inner-urges sucks, pardon the pun, but it's something everyone has to do at some point, straight people included. As a straight man--and by the way, that heterosexuals are called "straight" by itself implies that the given behavior is more normal, as opposed to "crooked"--but we straight men who are married are constantly seeing other attractive women in our daily lives. Purely biologically speaking, we want nothing more than to take those attractive women to the nearest and nicest hotel room and swap sweat all over each other's bare bodies until we can barely wiggle afterwards. We are BORN to feel this way, to see an attractive woman and to want her that way is the most natural thing in the world.
HOWEVER, we don't act on those urges, because we're married, and because to do that would be wrong, NO MATTER how natural it may feel purely biologically-speaking. We may be "born" to want those other women, and it may be natural, but it's also wrong, and we have to suppress that animal desire. Just because the behavior you are acting on is because you think you were "born this way" is no excuse for doing it if the act is amoral.
Especially when you are dealing with commerce on a small scale, you will always see things such as, say, an older couple renting a few homes but not wanting to rent their homes to people who "shack up." I think that's their right. I do agree that lines can become confusing at some point--on one hand, yes, a couple "shacking up" shouldn't always be having doors slammed on their face, if they can pay rent that's all that they should be worried about, they shouldn't have to be homeless just because landlords think their personal life is a basis for renting or not. However, I'm thinking of larger apartment complexes or for borrowing money for buying a home, for smaller operations, such as an older couple renting just 2-3 homes near their own place to where they are going to be bumping into their tenants regularly, they are not going to want to open up their "homes" to people they don't want living there for whatever reason. They are thinking "I'd like to rent out those 2 houses over there, they're just taking up space, but I don't want to do that if I am forced to rent to people I'm not comfortable with living so close to me like that." They should have that right--yes, even if it means we basically overturn housing discrimination laws for such "smaller" scale operations, so be it. There are plenty of larger apartment complexes where no one knows anyone's name that such people can live in and receive the equal treatment they seek.
In like manner, if a photographer wants to photograph a wedding but he is against gay marriage and doesn't want to photograph those, he should be able to enter into business and say "I don't do gay weddings, due to my belief system." There will be plenty of other photographers who won't have an objection, the homosexuals are free to go to them. If someone can make beautiful flower arrangements, they should be able to do so on the condition that they only do so for people they WANT to do this for. We're not talking about homosexual being kicked out of a McDonalds or Wendy's, heck even Chick-Fil-A will serve them. We're talking about artistic types of services and the like, and people shouldn't have to submit their artistic endeavors such as photos, flowers, or cakes towards activities they have moral disagreements with, especially when there are plenty of other equally suitable vendors readily available.
Ignoring the idiotic belief that gays choose to be gay, I am going to gander a guess that if blacks chose to be black, you'd hate them publically. No way you wouldn't, considering your main motive for hating gays is that you believe that it's a choice, and no actual other reason. You're an open homophobe and probably a closet racist. I will tell you that no, being gay is not a choice, anymore than being left handed or being blue eyed. And if being black was a choice, I would not be racist towards them anyway, because unlike you, I am not disgusted by those who are different. I did not choose to be gay, that's absurd. I even denied my sexuality in younger years. Also, you mentioned how you have inner desires to have sex with another woman even though you are married LOL I'm gay, and I would never have sex with a man besides my partner who I love very much, not even DREAM about it! I take fidelity very seriously. But yea, clearly it's gays who are the perverts and the warped ones Don't take your inner angst out on us, sir.
To the contrary. Rights in America are moving towards being for all, rather than for a select few. We started out giving rights to only white male landowners. Look how far we have come.
I just wanna say that everything you post is on point!
“reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk.”
Though facially neutral, I'm pretty sure the law has a negative disparate impact on men. I'll wait for Holder to do an investigation to determine if the law is illegal.
I'm sure that would also apply to men who needed to express breast milk also.
Please re-read what I wrote, and show me where I mentioned sexual orientation
The most glaring example was in post #1001 when you took it one step further and made it not just about sexual orientation generally, but about your sexual orientation specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
since a male can enter into a legal marriage that I can not.
Loriinwa nailed it in post #1010, especially the part where she wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
You want to have special treatment based on the underlying relationship
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.
Don't take your inner angst out on us, sir.
