Conservatives, what pisses you off the most about homosexuals

[Nosmo King]

Heterosexuals destroyed morality long before gays began demanding equal rights.


Long, long, long before.

Vote Trump Family Values, but for God's sake don't bake a cake for a homo!

The difference is that whatever you or the President or anybody else does in his/her own time, on hisher own dime, and that is not illegal requires nothing whatsoever from me. In such cases he/she who is without sin should cast the first stone or otherwise mind his/her own business.

When I am required to bake a cake for you, however, I am required to contribute and participate materially and physically. And I am required to violate my personal values and ethics if you require me to put something on that cake that I believe to be fundamentally wrong and/or participate or contribute in any other way in something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

I don't expect everybody reading this to appreciate the distinction between those two things. But there sure as hell is one.

Two real distinctions

If you set yourself up in business as a baker, you bake cakes. “Required” is really ‘requested’. It’s your stock in trade, not an egregious ‘requirement’.

Next, in order to make a claim of disapproval, the vendor should morally get every client, thus imposing a mercantile imperator. Is this fair by any consideration? Certainly there are clients whose criminal reputyis far more egregious than simply being Gay. Do these ‘selective vendors also refuse cakes for Maria princesses? Polygamists? Convicted child molesters wanting a birthday cake?

 

[bodecea]

Dykes no problem

Gays no problem unless they are talking about weird ass shit all the time


.

Trust me...gays don't talk about gay sex anywhere near as much as our homo-voyeurs do.

Yeah Pete that's why you have a fag flag.

Moron

Pete? What is with this "Pete" jazz? Do you even know....or do you just regurgitate stuff.............................again.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

Is this flaming devil faggot your hero? Is this the kind of disgusting queer you want reading to your kids? Please explain to help me better understand...

This is disgusting and he's not doing it in his fucking bedroom he's doing it in front of children in the Library!

Reading them a story! And we all know how CRCs hate that reading stuff!

Annie Christ, teaching kids some family values:

Annie went to catholic school see its ok ...at a library reading an activist book teaching about love and tolerance
what page is that in the playbook ?

the middle get sucked into that

no ones forcing anyone to do anything BUT YET you can get sued as a NYC landlord for not calling someone mrs because they insist you have to.
see if we only learned to accept and love UNder the threat of government ...which is not really force on ignorant boston university casting call clown world
the left are not conformist totalitarians....... NOT AT ALL

theyre free spirits !

and we're all cosed minded homo phobes

we're all OPPRESSIVE EVIL Christan Evangelicals every single last one of us

NOW if a Muslim tells em youre not reading that left wing activist bullshit to my prepubescent kids ?.....how does that work again ?
in tolerant jolly ol england?

where are all you social justice clowns when that happens ?
SIT AND SPIN

honk honk

 

[TemplarKormac]

But we all know these so-called Christian establishments do NOT operate their businesses by biblical standards

So you completely discount the possibility that there are Christian business owners out there who do? Are we going to trample on their rights as well?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What you are demanding is "special rights." You are not entitled to that.

Uh no.

What I am demanding is that both sides get the same treatment under public accommodation laws. That or craft legislation giving accommodations to business owners who are people of faith. Or fashion the laws in such a way that it appeases both sides without taking rights from one or the other.

I never said I was entitled to anything.

What "sides" are these? One is a sexual orientation and one is some religious group. Apples and oranges. I'm a heterosexual. Does this put me on a "side" of some sort? This is just plain silly.

You are not on a "side" because of your sexual orientation whatever that is. You are, however, almost certainly on the side of various issues, causes, moral concepts, various values etc. not because of your sexual orientation but because of who you are, what you believe, what is important to you.

What Templar is arguing for is that EVERYBODY be allowed his/her thoughts, dreams, values, moral evaluations, opinions, etc. regardless of what they are so long as that person is not prohibiting or trying to deny that liberty to anybody else even if that somebody else is on the opposite side of the argument.

Nobody should be forced to physically or materially participate in ANY way or in ANY respect with something he/she chooses not to participate in.

BINGO.

 

[Foxfyre]

Heterosexuals destroyed morality long before gays began demanding equal rights.


Long, long, long before.

Vote Trump Family Values, but for God's sake don't bake a cake for a homo!

The difference is that whatever you or the President or anybody else does in his/her own time, on hisher own dime, and that is not illegal requires nothing whatsoever from me. In such cases he/she who is without sin should cast the first stone or otherwise mind his/her own business.

When I am required to bake a cake for you, however, I am required to contribute and participate materially and physically. And I am required to violate my personal values and ethics if you require me to put something on that cake that I believe to be fundamentally wrong and/or participate or contribute in any other way in something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

I don't expect everybody reading this to appreciate the distinction between those two things. But there sure as hell is one.

Two real distinctions

If you set yourself up in business as a baker, you bake cakes. “Required” is really ‘requested’. It’s your stock in trade, not an egregious ‘requirement’.

Next, in order to make a claim of disapproval, the vendor should morally get every client, thus imposing a mercantile imperator. Is this fair by any consideration? Certainly there are clients whose criminal reputyis far more egregious than simply being Gay. Do these ‘selective vendors also refuse cakes for Maria princesses? Polygamists? Convicted child molesters wanting a birthday cake?

Again you want to make it about the people being gay. That isn't it. The baker serves the gay people who come into the shop to buy what the baker has for sale. He has no problem with gay people being gay and he has no problem selling them products he wishes to sell. And since few people wear on their sleeve that they are mafia princesses or polygamists or child molesters, those people most likely also are able to go into a bakery and buy whatever is for sale there.

But I would bet a very nice steak dinner that a baker that would object to providing a service/product for a same sex wedding would also refuse to sell any product or service celebrating the Mafia or polygamy or child molestation or NAMBLA or anything else for which he cannot condone or sanction or feels is not the way things should be.

If he doesn't want to, a gay baker should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting traditional families as what God intended. He doesn't protest or try to interfere with the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he might bake the cupcakes sponsored by the same people for a concert or Bar Mitzvah or the "Save the Whales" rally.

Likewise a Christian baker who believes traditional families are what God intended should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting a same sex marriage. He doesn't protest or try to interfere or even speak against the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he would bake and decorate the cupcakes for the same people's birthday party or Elk's Club initiation or their sponsored Save the Whales rally.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dykes no problem

Gays no problem unless they are talking about weird ass shit all the time


.

Trust me...gays don't talk about gay sex anywhere near as much as our homo-voyeurs do.

Translation~ you don't know any........................




.

Oh...I know quite a few, since I am part of the Community.

Then your out right lying


.

 

[Nosmo King]

Heterosexuals destroyed morality long before gays began demanding equal rights.


Long, long, long before.

Vote Trump Family Values, but for God's sake don't bake a cake for a homo!

The difference is that whatever you or the President or anybody else does in his/her own time, on hisher own dime, and that is not illegal requires nothing whatsoever from me. In such cases he/she who is without sin should cast the first stone or otherwise mind his/her own business.

When I am required to bake a cake for you, however, I am required to contribute and participate materially and physically. And I am required to violate my personal values and ethics if you require me to put something on that cake that I believe to be fundamentally wrong and/or participate or contribute in any other way in something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

I don't expect everybody reading this to appreciate the distinction between those two things. But there sure as hell is one.

Two real distinctions

If you set yourself up in business as a baker, you bake cakes. “Required” is really ‘requested’. It’s your stock in trade, not an egregious ‘requirement’.

Next, in order to make a claim of disapproval, the vendor should morally get every client, thus imposing a mercantile imperator. Is this fair by any consideration? Certainly there are clients whose criminal reputyis far more egregious than simply being Gay. Do these ‘selective vendors also refuse cakes for Maria princesses? Polygamists? Convicted child molesters wanting a birthday cake?

Again you want to make it about the people being gay. That isn't it. The baker serves the gay people who come into the shop to buy what the baker has for sale. He has no problem with gay people being gay and he has no problem selling them products he wishes to sell. And since few people wear on their sleeve that they are mafia princesses or polygamists or child molesters, those people most likely also are able to go into a bakery and buy whatever is for sale there.

But I would bet a very nice steak dinner that a baker that would object to providing a service/product for a same sex wedding would also refuse to sell any product or service celebrating the Mafia or polygamy or child molestation or NAMBLA or anything else for which he cannot condone or sanction or feels is not the way things should be.

If he doesn't want to, a gay baker should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting traditional families as what God intended. He doesn't protest or try to interfere with the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he might bake the cupcakes sponsored by the same people for a concert or Bar Mitzvah or the "Save the Whales" rally.

Likewise a Christian baker who believes traditional families are what God intended should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting a same sex marriage. He doesn't protest or try to interfere or even speak against the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he would bake and decorate the cupcakes for the same people's birthday party or Elk's Club initiation or their sponsored Save the Whales rally.

Should that form of discrimination be protected under law?

 

[Foxfyre]

Heterosexuals destroyed morality long before gays began demanding equal rights.


Long, long, long before.

Vote Trump Family Values, but for God's sake don't bake a cake for a homo!

The difference is that whatever you or the President or anybody else does in his/her own time, on hisher own dime, and that is not illegal requires nothing whatsoever from me. In such cases he/she who is without sin should cast the first stone or otherwise mind his/her own business.

When I am required to bake a cake for you, however, I am required to contribute and participate materially and physically. And I am required to violate my personal values and ethics if you require me to put something on that cake that I believe to be fundamentally wrong and/or participate or contribute in any other way in something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

I don't expect everybody reading this to appreciate the distinction between those two things. But there sure as hell is one.

Two real distinctions

If you set yourself up in business as a baker, you bake cakes. “Required” is really ‘requested’. It’s your stock in trade, not an egregious ‘requirement’.

Next, in order to make a claim of disapproval, the vendor should morally get every client, thus imposing a mercantile imperator. Is this fair by any consideration? Certainly there are clients whose criminal reputyis far more egregious than simply being Gay. Do these ‘selective vendors also refuse cakes for Maria princesses? Polygamists? Convicted child molesters wanting a birthday cake?

Again you want to make it about the people being gay. That isn't it. The baker serves the gay people who come into the shop to buy what the baker has for sale. He has no problem with gay people being gay and he has no problem selling them products he wishes to sell. And since few people wear on their sleeve that they are mafia princesses or polygamists or child molesters, those people most likely also are able to go into a bakery and buy whatever is for sale there.

But I would bet a very nice steak dinner that a baker that would object to providing a service/product for a same sex wedding would also refuse to sell any product or service celebrating the Mafia or polygamy or child molestation or NAMBLA or anything else for which he cannot condone or sanction or feels is not the way things should be.

If he doesn't want to, a gay baker should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting traditional families as what God intended. He doesn't protest or try to interfere with the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he might bake the cupcakes sponsored by the same people for a concert or Bar Mitzvah or the "Save the Whales" rally.

Likewise a Christian baker who believes traditional families are what God intended should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting a same sex marriage. He doesn't protest or try to interfere or even speak against the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he would bake and decorate the cupcakes for the same people's birthday party or Elk's Club initiation or their sponsored Save the Whales rally.

Should that form of discrimination be protected under law?

The right to be able to choose what you will materially or physically participate in as a business person should certainly be protected by law.

 

[Nosmo King]

Heterosexuals destroyed morality long before gays began demanding equal rights.


Long, long, long before.

Vote Trump Family Values, but for God's sake don't bake a cake for a homo!

The difference is that whatever you or the President or anybody else does in his/her own time, on hisher own dime, and that is not illegal requires nothing whatsoever from me. In such cases he/she who is without sin should cast the first stone or otherwise mind his/her own business.

When I am required to bake a cake for you, however, I am required to contribute and participate materially and physically. And I am required to violate my personal values and ethics if you require me to put something on that cake that I believe to be fundamentally wrong and/or participate or contribute in any other way in something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

I don't expect everybody reading this to appreciate the distinction between those two things. But there sure as hell is one.

Two real distinctions

If you set yourself up in business as a baker, you bake cakes. “Required” is really ‘requested’. It’s your stock in trade, not an egregious ‘requirement’.

Next, in order to make a claim of disapproval, the vendor should morally get every client, thus imposing a mercantile imperator. Is this fair by any consideration? Certainly there are clients whose criminal reputyis far more egregious than simply being Gay. Do these ‘selective vendors also refuse cakes for Maria princesses? Polygamists? Convicted child molesters wanting a birthday cake?

Again you want to make it about the people being gay. That isn't it. The baker serves the gay people who come into the shop to buy what the baker has for sale. He has no problem with gay people being gay and he has no problem selling them products he wishes to sell. And since few people wear on their sleeve that they are mafia princesses or polygamists or child molesters, those people most likely also are able to go into a bakery and buy whatever is for sale there.

But I would bet a very nice steak dinner that a baker that would object to providing a service/product for a same sex wedding would also refuse to sell any product or service celebrating the Mafia or polygamy or child molestation or NAMBLA or anything else for which he cannot condone or sanction or feels is not the way things should be.

If he doesn't want to, a gay baker should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting traditional families as what God intended. He doesn't protest or try to interfere with the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he might bake the cupcakes sponsored by the same people for a concert or Bar Mitzvah or the "Save the Whales" rally.

Likewise a Christian baker who believes traditional families are what God intended should not be expected to prepare products decorated for and/or cater an event celebrating and/or promoting a same sex marriage. He doesn't protest or try to interfere or even speak against the event. He just chooses not to participate in it materially or physically. But he would bake and decorate the cupcakes for the same people's birthday party or Elk's Club initiation or their sponsored Save the Whales rally.

Should that form of discrimination be protected under law?

The right to be able to choose what you will materially or physically participate in as a business person should certainly be protected by law.

Could such a law apply to any vendor for any purpose?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

You degenerate filth on the left wrong have defined “hate” to mean any expression or exercise of basic decency, moral standards, and even sanity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You'll not get an honest answer from the right.

He's got several good, honest answers, from us on the right. That neither of you like our answers does not invalidate them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What is the noble purpose behind it ntolerance [sic]? What are the virtues rof [sic] intolerance? Why is it good?

Tolerance of evil and madness is most certainly not a virtue; and intolerance of the same is most certainly not a vice.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's funny to listen to homophobic Trump supporters talk about morality.

It's funny to hear the "anything goes" left talk about morality.

Especially as they openly support the foulest of immoral sexual perversions.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you personally believe that homosexuals are harmful to themselves and/or others?

Absolutely.

One has to be blind not to see the damage being done to society as a whole, as a result of the corrosive effect of all forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have a real problem with accepting legal protection for discrimination based on stereotype. I have a problem with people using faith as a justification for hate.

You degenerate filth on the left wrong have defined “hate” to mean any expression or exercise of basic decency, moral standards, and even sanity.

You Conservatives have an odd sense of morality and decency.

I cite the character of your political hero as People’s Exhibit A

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Funny how back when the US had even lighter gun restrictions and a much more stringent code of morality, there was a lot less gun violence. Not to mention lower rates of divorce and other such things.

Illegetimacy is a major issue, these days. About a third of children in this country are now born without the benefit of a table family. In some ethnic groups, it's as much as three-fourths. Children being raised without the benefit of an intact family, with a mother and a father. This is a direct result of the decline of general standards of morality and decency in our society, and the consequences of it are tragic and destructive.

 

[Nosmo King]

What is the noble purpose behind it ntolerance [sic]? What are the virtues rof [sic] intolerance? Why is it good?

Tolerance of evil and madness is most certainly not a virtue; and intolerance of the same is most certainly not a vice.

Evil and madness?

Homosexuals are tax payers, business owners, active in your community, sober responsible citizens.

They serve our country in the armed forces, as first responders, doctors, engineers, educators, clergy and researchers.

They are your neighbors, your friends and members of your family.

Evil and madness? Are those traits exclusive to homosexuals?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Stop lying and saying we simply have problem with what people do in their bedrooms. We don't give a fuck what you do in your bedroom.

You might as well ask a pig not to wallow in mud as ask g5000 not to lie.

 

[bodecea]

But we all know these so-called Christian establishments do NOT operate their businesses by biblical standards

So you completely discount the possibility that there are Christian business owners out there who do? Are we going to trample on their rights as well?

And when there is a religious business owner who claims that following safety or health business laws are "against their religion"?