If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[ChrisL]

Indeed, it makes members of those groups “more equal than others”, and makes a mockery of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So if I put a big sign in front of my business that said, "I don't serve Mormons!" you'd be totally cool with that, right?

Why not advertise your bigotry? I certainly wouldn't do business with you. But, unlike you sicko mentally ill sociopaths and neo-fascist vermin, I'm not going to try and ruin your livelihood over it; you can do that by yourself.

I've thought of that often myself. "I'm going to ruin your life and your livelihood because you refused to bake a cake for a gay couple - I'll show you!" What kind of an asshole would destroy someone over something like that? A hateful one is the correct answer.

 

[hadit]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

They can already. Religious belief is not a protected class.

 

[OldLady]

As you see the far left missed the point of what the court decided.

It decided that the Government over reached!

7 - 2 just goes to show that this was about government over reach and nothing else.

Well, the entire case was thoroughly lied about and distorted by the left wing media and the pedo-friendly homosexual lobby. The baker had always had a policy of refusing controversial messages and the like in his business all along, and wasn't discriminating against anybody in the first place. It was merely an extortion attempt by a gang of fascists and their huckster lawyers looking for a payday off the backs of some little businessperson. I hope he/she/it/mutant counter-sues every phoney 'Rights' group that smeared them and paid for the frivolous suit, and the sleazebag lawyers as well.

Of course it was discriminating.

 

[ChrisL]

Agree with my views or expect for your entire life to be destroyed by us should be the democrat motto. Lol.

 

[Picaro]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Of course they can. They already do in many cases. it is natural to not wish to interact with those who dislike you for whatever reason.

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

The very concept of "protected classes" defies the precept of so-called "equality".

So, do away with the protected classes list. Treat everyone equally, everyone goes home happy.

Or not.

You are 100% correct, you cannot give some "classes" more protection and then claim everyone has equal protection.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution apply to the Govt only, they were never meant for private citizens.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution are directly for the private citizens, in that the government cannot pass laws that interfere with their right to the religion of their choice.

Nothing in the Constitution defines what is a legitimate 'religion'; the states were left to decide that, and not a single one of them mentioned sex fetishes as having political status. Chruches and ministers have every right to make themselves heard on your cult's deviant behavior and obsessions, and they have every right to repress it; it's a public health menace to boot

 

[Picaro]

As you see the far left missed the point of what the court decided.

It decided that the Government over reached!

7 - 2 just goes to show that this was about government over reach and nothing else.

Well, the entire case was thoroughly lied about and distorted by the left wing media and the pedo-friendly homosexual lobby. The baker had always had a policy of refusing controversial messages and the like in his business all along, and wasn't discriminating against anybody in the first place. It was merely an extortion attempt by a gang of fascists and their huckster lawyers looking for a payday off the backs of some little businessperson. I hope he/she/it/mutant counter-sues every phoney 'Rights' group that smeared them and paid for the frivolous suit, and the sleazebag lawyers as well.

Of course it was discriminating.

No, he didn't; they weren't singled out. He didn't serve Nazis or any other group, either. you're just a little Neo-fascist who doesn't give a crap about the Constitution, you just want to be another fashionable sociopath.

 

[Picaro]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Of course they can. They already do in many cases. it is natural to not wish to interact with those who dislike you for whatever reason.

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

The very concept of "protected classes" defies the precept of so-called "equality".

So, do away with the protected classes list. Treat everyone equally, everyone goes home happy.

Or not.

You are 100% correct, you cannot give some "classes" more protection and then claim everyone has equal protection.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution apply to the Govt only, they were never meant for private citizens.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution are directly for the private citizens, in that the government cannot pass laws that interfere with their right to the religion of their choice.

And the baker was exercising his. You are too dense to know you're babbling cognitively dissonant rubbish. Sexual fetishes are not 'religions', except maybe to Democrats, and they're all traitors so their opinions don't matter. You lost the White house, aren't going to get to appoint any more mentally ill gimps to Federal benches for a long time, so a lot of your illegal criminal rubbish is going to be swept out the legal system and laws in the future.

 

[CowboyTed]

I really can't understand why someone would want to ruin their life with a lifelong commitment to a relationship.

Not very many Gay Marriages last that long.

A complete lie....

Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples | HuffPost

Now you must be embarrassed...

 

[hadit]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

This is what is going to happen, every group is now going to shun and deny service to anyone they don't like. Orange turd will be ecstatic.

Orange turd sounds dangerous. You should get that checked out.

 

[Silhouette]

Religious belief is not a protected class.

You failed American Government in high school, right?

 

[OldLady]

I don't see what the problem is- if someone is really committed to homosexuality that they don't care to deal with people that have moral problems with it- they shouldn't have to.

This kinda says it all.

Yep. And the opposite applies, as well.

We're all just so damn desperate to attack the other tribe, that "live and let live" is a thing of the past.
.

I remember the days when being homosexual was NEVER discussed. People knew who was and who wasn't, and for the most part it WAS "live and let live," by remaining mum and politely refusing to "see." One of my favorite relatives was gay, and it broke my heart how lonely he was in the end of his life. As a teacher, he could not possibly have "come out" in that day and age, although everyone knew. He taught in a community hours from home, boarded with a family there for years. He was a highly respected teacher and I'm not sure if they knew and also ignored it. I doubt it; even in my much more progressive high school, the teacher it was rumored was gay would have been fired on the spot if it had been confirmed. He was a great teacher, but at that time, homosexuals were considered pedophiles.

It could be really hard for homosexuals then, but just like Queen Elizabeth the First politely ignoring the alternate religions being practiced in her Kingdom although they were illegal, it brought relative peace in daily life. Now I'm not sure if things have gotten easier or not. Guess we'd need an old gay person to tell us if it's better.

 

[mdk]

Yes, and those goes for everyone else.

 

[Silhouette]

Your rights end where my rights to bacon begin.

I'm actually thinking of putting your quote in my signature. Except it's already taken by an important CDC announcement. But you should definitely use it in your signature!

 

[Picaro]

lol says some weirdo who keeps trying to tell us Wicca is a 'religion', but can never explain why it is.

You don't know jack about religion, you're just another fashion victim spouting rubbish fed to you, like the rest of the mentally ill 'progressives' here. I bet you don't even know 'witch burning' and ' burning fags to death was a pagan invention, not a Christian one, do you? lol lol lol

"Fashion victim"? Just what the hell is that? Is this the latest from the moronic right-wing propaganda mills, like "virtue signalling"? The people who call themselves "Christians" are prostituting an entire faith. If these jackasses don't have to explain why what they practice is a religion, why does anyone else have to explain why their's is a religion? Nobody feeds me anything, moron. Quite the opposite. I don't buy the horseshit slung by the likes of such trash as Jeffress and the family research council, et al. quite on my own. Stop trying to drag the entire Christian faith into your sewer.

Fashion victim . . .

The Vogue fashion editor who regularly slams Melania's choice in clothes. Lol. Could you IMAGINE? Reality is stranger than fiction.

[/QUOT

You have got to be kidding.

Nope. Scary, isn't it? I'm willing to bet she is a leftist.

How did she get the job as fashion editior?

Now you're kidding, right? These freaks and sickos control nearly all news outlets and magazines, media of all types now. This sicko gimp is actually what they leave no stone unturned to find and put in charge

 

[OldLady]

Of course they can. They already do in many cases. it is natural to not wish to interact with those who dislike you for whatever reason.

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

The very concept of "protected classes" defies the precept of so-called "equality".

So, do away with the protected classes list. Treat everyone equally, everyone goes home happy.

Or not.

You are 100% correct, you cannot give some "classes" more protection and then claim everyone has equal protection.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution apply to the Govt only, they were never meant for private citizens.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution are directly for the private citizens, in that the government cannot pass laws that interfere with their right to the religion of their choice.

Nothing in the Constitution defines what is a legitimate 'religion'; the states were left to decide that, and not a single one of them mentioned sex fetishes as having political status. Chruches and ministers have every right to make themselves heard on your cult's deviant behavior and obsessions, and they have every right to repress it; it's a public health menace to boot

The ELECTED officials of Colorado passed Public Accommodation laws that forbid discrimination against gays. What was legal or illegal or described in the Constitution 250 years ago has nothing to do with it.

 

[Picaro]

Atheists should be able to refuse service to gays, just like any religious person.
People should be able to refuse to service to anyone for any reason.
Muslims dont like gays either..

Or all the morons can keep their fetishes to themselves, in their bedrooms, and nobody would care. Too bad they're mentally sick and just can't keep from annoying us all with their sick crap, and go on the demand they be allowed access to schoolkids and Scout troops, and all the rest of their 'Out N Proud' advertising of their assorted neurotic fetishes. Walk into my house or go near my kids wearing sicko leather crap and you're getting birdshot or pellets in your ass.

 

[jknowgood]

I really can't understand why someone would want to ruin their life with a lifelong commitment to a relationship.

Not very many Gay Marriages last that long.

I take it you know that from personal experience.

A liberal using homosexuality to insult someone. How tolerable you are.

 

[Picaro]

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

The very concept of "protected classes" defies the precept of so-called "equality".

So, do away with the protected classes list. Treat everyone equally, everyone goes home happy.

Or not.

You are 100% correct, you cannot give some "classes" more protection and then claim everyone has equal protection.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution apply to the Govt only, they were never meant for private citizens.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution are directly for the private citizens, in that the government cannot pass laws that interfere with their right to the religion of their choice.

Nothing in the Constitution defines what is a legitimate 'religion'; the states were left to decide that, and not a single one of them mentioned sex fetishes as having political status. Chruches and ministers have every right to make themselves heard on your cult's deviant behavior and obsessions, and they have every right to repress it; it's a public health menace to boot

The ELECTED officials of Colorado passed Public Accommodation laws that forbid discrimination against gays. What was legal or illegal or described in the Constitution 250 years ago has nothing to do with it.

Fashion victim here keeps citing 'The Constitution', then says it doesn't matter. lol that's typical of the dope-addled retardation at work re Democrats and their deviant sub-cults.

 

[ChrisL]

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

The very concept of "protected classes" defies the precept of so-called "equality".

So, do away with the protected classes list. Treat everyone equally, everyone goes home happy.

Or not.

You are 100% correct, you cannot give some "classes" more protection and then claim everyone has equal protection.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution apply to the Govt only, they were never meant for private citizens.

The anti-discrimination rules of the Constitution are directly for the private citizens, in that the government cannot pass laws that interfere with their right to the religion of their choice.

Nothing in the Constitution defines what is a legitimate 'religion'; the states were left to decide that, and not a single one of them mentioned sex fetishes as having political status. Chruches and ministers have every right to make themselves heard on your cult's deviant behavior and obsessions, and they have every right to repress it; it's a public health menace to boot

The ELECTED officials of Colorado passed Public Accommodation laws that forbid discrimination against gays. What was legal or illegal or described in the Constitution 250 years ago has nothing to do with it.

I don't think it is right to discriminate against gay people either. However, you cannot FORCE other people into acceptance. That is the wrong way to go about things obviously. It is not right to destroy a person's life over it either.

 

[Picaro]

I really can't understand why someone would want to ruin their life with a lifelong commitment to a relationship.

Not very many Gay Marriages last that long.

I take it you know that from personal experience.

A liberal using homosexuality to insult someone. How tolerable you are.

They do it all the time. They're puppets and morons.