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.
That's not what the ruling stated. It specifically preserved the First Amendment rights of closely held corporation owners to exercise their religion.
But, hey... keep bullying people. The homosexual guerilla activists' bullying tactics are causing many to rescind their support for homosexuals.
Chick-fil-A, Memories Pizza... how many times do guerilla activists have to get the public's distate for their bully antics shoved in their face before they get it?
So let's compromise on this issue by adopting the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy formerly used by the military. The person buying the wedding cake would agree not to let on that the cake is for a gay wedding. The baker would agree not to ask, "Are you gay?".
So let's compromise on this issue by adopting the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy formerly used by the military. The person buying the wedding cake would agree not to let on that the cake is for a gay wedding. The baker would agree not to ask, "Are you gay?".
I would even go one step further. Allow them to discriminate, but require posting of the fact that they do in their window.
That way I know to never spend a dime in their store, and so will others. I don't want to spend money in a shop for years before finding out that they won't sell specific items to me.
That's not what the ruling stated. It specifically preserved the First Amendment rights of closely held corporation owners to exercise their religion.
But, hey... keep bullying people. The homosexual guerilla activists' bullying tactics are causing many to rescind their support for homosexuals.
Chick-fil-A, Memories Pizza... how many times do guerilla activists have to get the public's distate for their bully antics shoved in their face before they get it?
Hey, your "shoved in their face" is someone else's right to protest.
Public distaste shouldn't stop anyone (including the bakers) from attempting to right what they believe is wrong.
That's not what the ruling stated. It specifically preserved the First Amendment rights of closely held corporation owners to exercise their religion.
But, hey... keep bullying people. The homosexual guerilla activists' bullying tactics are causing many to rescind their support for homosexuals.
Chick-fil-A, Memories Pizza... how many times do guerilla activists have to get the public's distate for their bully antics shoved in their face before they get it?
Your venture into a personal attack shows that you recognize you are on shaky ground.
The Ruling was about compelling Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations to PAY for insurance. PAYING for insurance that didn't coincide with their religious beliefs was the violation Hobby Lobby sued over.
If a baker is going to worry about the sex lives of his customers as much or more than as his products, then he or she is in the wrong business.
The bakers and florists in these cases didn't care about their gay customers sex lives. They cared about the view of marriage under their religious beliefs, as crazy, bigoted, or hateful as you think they are.
I would even go one step further. Allow them to discriminate, but require posting of the fact that they do in their window.
That way I know to never spend a dime in their store, and so will others. I don't want to spend money in a shop for years before finding out that they won't sell specific items to me.
Does that mean you'd agree to get rid of anti-discrimination laws in exchange for signs that say the business does discriminate ?
Does that mean you'd agree to get rid of anti-discrimination laws in exchange for signs that say the business does discriminate ?
Yep, but that includes ALL anti-discrimination laws race, sex, religion, age, disability, everything. And businesses have to post who they will not serve or they can not refuse service to them.
If a shop doesn't post anything they have to sell to anyone.
If a shop lists gays they can only refuse service to gays.
If a shop lists blacks they can only refuse service to black.
If they list blacks, gays, and women, they can only refuse those groups.
IF you want to discriminate, then post it for all customers to see.
The bakers and florists in these cases didn't care about their gay customers sex lives. They cared about the view of marriage under their religious beliefs, as crazy, bigoted, or hateful as you think they are.
But what if I am an agnostic baker and so have no religious beliefs? And I find gay sex acts to be grossly repugnant. I further feel that people who do such acts are not worthy of marriage done their way. Therefore, I refuse to sell them a wedding cake. Wouldn't I be in trouble with the law from violating anti-discrimination laws, while religious bakers could claim religious objections and not have to sell wedding cakes to gays? If so, that's not fair. No wonder some people feel atheists and agnostics need protection.
The bakers and florists in these cases didn't care about their gay customers sex lives. They cared about the view of marriage under their religious beliefs, as crazy, bigoted, or hateful as you think they are.
Well, once again, if someone buys a wedding cake off the shelf for a gay wedding, how are the anti-gay bakers supposed to know it will be used at a gay wedding, unless the buyer lets on. Does the baker have no other choice than to ask before the sale, "Is this cake intended for use at a gay wedding?" That is why bakers objecting to how their cakes are used is so silly. The baker has no control over where that cake may end up once he let's it out the door.
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.