If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[Silhouette]

And you did not address the point that I made in post 190 three days ago because you cannot defend your bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children: Here it is again:

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Nice flip. We went from the uber-documented phenomenon of LGBT "pride" parades doing lewd sex acts in front of kids for decades to you accusing me of having a "bizarre and lurid obsession with sex and children". Nice touch. Do you mean to say that people concerned about children not being exposed to graphic sex acts are "bizarre and lurid"? Or are they protective? It almost seems like you're trying to mind fuck people into thinking that if they act on their instincts to protect children from predators, they themselves might be labelled as predators (and therefore less likely to act on behalf of children to protect them). Nice touch. Do they have a training facility or did you just pick up that grooming tip on your own?

First of all you had better watch that shit about suggesting that I employing " grooming tips" Second of all, I doubt that the behavior that claim is pervasive at gay pride events really occurs much anymore.

But, most importantly, this crap that you posted just serves to distract from the point that I made- which you have not address- which is that you have no business expecting gay people to conform to your standards of behavior, while you continually denigrate them, marginalize accuse them of being perverts, and basically treat them as less then human .

Now deal with that.

I'll watch my shit if you agree to watch yours. Don't EVER suggest that a person advocating for child safety re: sex crimes is labelled as "bizarre and lurid". OK asshole? If you do, be prepared for blowback.

Next. I HAVE been addressing your point in bold above BY TALKING ABOUT GAY PRIDE PARADES. And why? Because not one LGBT to my knowledge to date has ever denounced them; at least not publicly and survived a week afterwards. And since these parades are ICONIC of the LGBT culture and feature what they are "proud" to do in front of kids they invite to watch....then it has EVERYTHING TO DO with shop owners refusing to be any part whatsoever of that culture.

I am spot on target discussing gay pride parades in conjunction with why normal people will always marginalize LGBTs. We are required to marginalize them by laws in all 50 states protecting children. Get it now muchacho?

This may come as a total shock to you, but most people consider a culture that embraces proudly doing deviant sex acts in front of kids they've invited to watch as subhuman. You're never going to erase that, so get used to it. LGBT behaviors have cut their own throat so to speak on that one.

Next you will deny that millions of photographs exist of pride parades with kids watching, all across the US since the 1960s. Or my pet favorite, that you don't think that lewd acts are continuing to this day anyway! That they were "necessary to shock" in the past. I'm sorry, but there is never a situation where you can justify lewd sex acts in front of kids; but duly noted for the record that you have tried in one of your recent posts.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'll watch my shit if you agree to watch yours. Don't EVER suggest that a person advocating for child safety re: sex crimes is labelled as "bizarre and lurid". OK asshole? If you do, be prepared for blowback.

Advocating??!! What a joke! If you were advocating for children you would support same sex marriage and adoption by gays. Instead you are using the children as pawn in your holy crusade against gays who you paint as perverts and child molesters.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Next. I HAVE been addressing your point in bold above BY TALKING ABOUT GAY PRIDE PARADES. And why? Because not one LGBT to my knowledge to date has ever denounced them; at least not publicly and survived a week afterwards. And since these parades are ICONIC of the LGBT culture and feature what they are "proud" to do in front of kids they invite to watch....then it has EVERYTHING TO DO with shop owners refusing to be any part whatsoever of that culture.

I am spot on target discussing gay pride parades in conjunction with why normal people will always marginalize LGBTs. We are required to marginalize them by laws in all 50 states protecting children. Get it now muchacho?

NO you did not address my point . That point being , that your kind of bigotry, discrimination and hate speech breeds militancy and the very behavior that you decry.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This may come as a total shock to you, but most people consider a culture that embraces proudly doing deviant sex acts in front of kids they've invited to watch as subhuman. You're never going to erase that, so get used to it. LGBT behaviors have cut their own throat so to speak on that one.

Next you will deny that millions of photographs exist of pride parades with kids watching, all across the US since the 1960s. Or my pet favorite, that you don't think that lewd acts are continuing to this day anyway! That they were "necessary to shock" in the past. I'm sorry, but there is never a situation where you can justify lewd sex acts in front of kids; but duly noted for the record that you have tried in one of your recent posts.

I'm still waiting to see the evidence that this sort of thing is still happening on any sort of large scale or regular basis. I maintain that as gays gain rights, there is less of a need or desire for flamboyance, militancy and inappropriate behavior. If you post more pictures I expect you to include the day and location. I am not saying that sexual acting out in public never happens, but it also does at non gay events like Mardi Gras.

 

[Silhouette]

NO you did not address my point . That point being , that your kind of bigotry, discrimination and hate speech breeds militancy and the very behavior that you decry.

You mean in the pursuit of protecting children from sex perverts performing deviant acts in front of them at a place of invitation?

Guilty as charged. (And PROUD of it)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

NO you did not address my point . That point being , that your kind of bigotry, discrimination and hate speech breeds militancy and the very behavior that you decry.

You mean in the pursuit of protecting children from sex perverts performing deviant acts in front of them at a place of invitation?

Guilty as charged. (And PROUD of it)

Thank you for admitting that your position is that you will continue to denigrate , marginalize, and do all in your power to rob gays of their dignity EVEN KNOWING that doing so may put children at risk of the very behaviors that you decry.

Finally we've gotten somewhere

 

[Silhouette]

NO you did not address my point . That point being , that your kind of bigotry, discrimination and hate speech breeds militancy and the very behavior that you decry.

You mean in the pursuit of protecting children from sex perverts performing deviant acts in front of them at a place of invitation?

Guilty as charged. (And PROUD of it)

Thank you for admitting that your position is that you will continue to denigrate , marginalize, and do all in your power to rob gays of their dignity EVEN KNOWING that doing so may put children at risk of the very behaviors that you decry.

Finally we've gotten somewhere

Clearly our two definitions of "putting children at risk" are as different as can be. I'll default with mine, thanks. Because it's the one that's in line with the laws on the books in all 50 states regarding exposing children to lewd and graphic acts of deviant sex.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.

That is indeed a stretch. His so called religious freedom was directly tied he the fact that they were gay. Do you think that argument would work if it was a black person he refused to serve?

Probably not, but that's because there are no religions that I am aware of that look at being black as a sin. There are several religions, however, that look at homosexuality as a sin.

To be honest, I don't know that much about Christianity, but I do believe that Christians have use the bible to justify racial discrimination. Doesn't the KKK consider themselves Christians.? How about the Christian Identity Movement? They might well think that serving a black person, or interacting with him in any way is against gods law. You're really not making any progress on this pal.

I don't know anything about the beliefs of the kkk, nor the christian identity movement, so I can't comment on them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Only if there is a valid concern. Discriminating for the simple fact that you just dont like the person, or their lifestyle is wrong, and protected according to our laws.However, if a person's religious beliefs contradict that lifestyle, and it is written in their scriptures that you should avoid associating with them, then yes, they have the right according to their faith to avoid them.

So we've gone around in a circle again .Anybody should be able to discriminate as long as the motive is pure. And of course when asked why they discriminated-knowing that the wrong answer will get them in trouble -will be honest, and only invoke religion if that is really why they discriminated . Should work real well.

In religion, it is an established position that they believe homosexuality to be a sin. Would people try to use it to their advantage in certain situations? Sure, that is possible, but do we just abandon any protection for true religious liberty because some may abuse it, and hand all of the leverage to one group of people? I think no.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Unfortunately, we seem to be against a wall here. Like I said, in this case, you can't support one person's liberty without violating anothers. Maybe there needs to be more clarification in the laws, and I say that hesitantly because anytime government puts its hands into, or further encroaches on people's lives, more freedom gets jeopardized.

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

But doesnt that work in reverse too? You say ones religious liberty stops when it interferes with the life of another, similarly, the life of another stops when it interferes with ones religious liberty.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

NO you did not address my point . That point being , that your kind of bigotry, discrimination and hate speech breeds militancy and the very behavior that you decry.

You mean in the pursuit of protecting children from sex perverts performing deviant acts in front of them at a place of invitation?

Guilty as charged. (And PROUD of it)

Thank you for admitting that your position is that you will continue to denigrate , marginalize, and do all in your power to rob gays of their dignity EVEN KNOWING that doing so may put children at risk of the very behaviors that you decry.

Finally we've gotten somewhere

Clearly our two definitions of "putting children at risk" are as different as can be. I'll default with mine, thanks. Because it's the one that's in line with the laws on the books in all 50 states regarding exposing children to lewd and graphic acts of deviant sex.

You're being ridiculous and dishonest. I never said that exposing children to lewd behavior was appropriate. I said-and you know it- that I question the frequency with which it happens these days, and whether it is any different than some of the things that go on at other events that you seem to be unconcerned about. . Keep in mind that if it were not for bigots like you , they would not even need pride parades

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Only if there is a valid concern. Discriminating for the simple fact that you just dont like the person, or their lifestyle is wrong, and protected according to our laws.However, if a person's religious beliefs contradict that lifestyle, and it is written in their scriptures that you should avoid associating with them, then yes, they have the right according to their faith to avoid them.

So we've gone around in a circle again .Anybody should be able to discriminate as long as the motive is pure. And of course when asked why they discriminated-knowing that the wrong answer will get them in trouble -will be honest, and only invoke religion if that is really why they discriminated . Should work real well.

In religion, it is an established position that they believe homosexuality to be a sin. Would people try to use it to their advantage in certain situations? Sure, that is possible, but do we just abandon any protection for true religious liberty because some may abuse it, and hand all of the leverage to one group of people? I think no.

I think yes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Unfortunately, we seem to be against a wall here. Like I said, in this case, you can't support one person's liberty without violating anothers. Maybe there needs to be more clarification in the laws, and I say that hesitantly because anytime government puts its hands into, or further encroaches on people's lives, more freedom gets jeopardized.

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

But doesnt that work in reverse too? You say ones religious liberty stops when it interferes with the life of another, similarly, the life of another stops when it interferes with ones religious liberty.

Religious freedom is not absolute

Freedom from religion is the other side of the same coin

To allow the shop keeper to discriminate is, in effect allowing him to impose his religious views on another

And around and around we go

 

[mikegriffith1]

In addition to the pitiful logic and evasion that we've seen from liberals in this thread, we can now point to the liberal reaction to the liberal-owned Virginia restaurant The Red Hen's shocking denial of service to Trump's press secretary, Sarah Sanders. If a conservative restaurant had done that to Obama's press secretary, we'd still be hearing about it from the Left.

Liberals whine about and project onto conservatives fascist actions that only liberals do. Liberals blabber about "tolerance" and "inclusion," but they do the opposite.

Can anyone name a conservative restaurant that has denied service to a liberal politician? Can anyone name a conservative public figure who has been bashed by fellow conservatives for eating at a liberal-owned restaurant? Nope. But liberals do this stuff all the time.

Many celebrities who accepted invitations to attend some White House event subsequently withdrew their acceptance after being bashed on social media by their fellow liberals. We have the recent example of Twitter CEO Jack Dempsey who was literally "shamed" into apologizing for the terrible crime of eating at a Chick-Fil-A restaurant. We have the recent example of a DC restaurant standing by and doing nothing while protesters heckled DHS head Kirstjen Nielsen and her staff with loud shouts of profanity and ugly (and absurd) accusations. We actually have liberals now publicly calling for people to harass, and even kidnap, the children of conservative politicians. Yeah, that's real "tolerance" and "inclusion," hey?

 

[Seawytch]

Last night Sarah Sanders was refused service at a restaurant because she works for the president of the USA. I thought discrimination was illegal. She should file a discrimination suit on Monday.

This is another example of the "tolerant " left. They are the most intolerant beings on planet earth. The only good thing about this is that they are destroying the democrat party. The party of Kennedy and Truman is DEAD.

When you're successful in getting bigoted liars identified as a protected class because the have historically suffered discrimination, you'll have a point.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant.

Hmmm, but we have to be tolerant of intolerants like antifa, BLM, gay pride, La rasa, and the democrat party in general? How about colleges that ban conservative speakers? Are they tolerant?

what exactly makes Sarah Sanders a bigoted liar in your opinion? How was the owner of that restaurant a victim of past discrimination?

Define tolerance as it applies to BLM, gay pride or La Rasa. What would your intolerance of these organizations look like? What have they done, as an organization, that would garner your intolerance of these groups?

Aunt Lydia Sanders lies for the lying Trump Administration every time she steps up to the podium.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.

No, it is not. Supreme Court precedent is the opposite of what you claim.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Only if there is a valid concern. Discriminating for the simple fact that you just dont like the person, or their lifestyle is wrong, and protected according to our laws.However, if a person's religious beliefs contradict that lifestyle, and it is written in their scriptures that you should avoid associating with them, then yes, they have the right according to their faith to avoid them.

So we've gone around in a circle again .Anybody should be able to discriminate as long as the motive is pure. And of course when asked why they discriminated-knowing that the wrong answer will get them in trouble -will be honest, and only invoke religion if that is really why they discriminated . Should work real well.

In religion, it is an established position that they believe homosexuality to be a sin. Would people try to use it to their advantage in certain situations? Sure, that is possible, but do we just abandon any protection for true religious liberty because some may abuse it, and hand all of the leverage to one group of people? I think no.

I think yes.

So then, you feel.one side has all the rights. How does this make you any better than the side you are railing against?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Unfortunately, we seem to be against a wall here. Like I said, in this case, you can't support one person's liberty without violating anothers. Maybe there needs to be more clarification in the laws, and I say that hesitantly because anytime government puts its hands into, or further encroaches on people's lives, more freedom gets jeopardized.

I think that we have been over this. You're right to swing your arm ends where my face begins

But doesnt that work in reverse too? You say ones religious liberty stops when it interferes with the life of another, similarly, the life of another stops when it interferes with ones religious liberty.

Religious freedom is not absolute

Freedom from religion is the other side of the same coin

To allow the shop keeper to discriminate is, in effect allowing him to impose his religious views on another

And around and around we go

Yep, around we go, because allowing the gay couple to force someone into performing work for them against their will is imposing their lifestyle on the business.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.

No, it is not. Supreme Court precedent is the opposite of what you claim.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.

No, it is not. Supreme Court precedent is the opposite of what you claim.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

It is clearly discrimination when you are willing to provide a service for straight couples and refuse to provide the same service for gay couples.

PA laws in about 20 states do say you have to serve gay couples. PA laws have been found constitutional, religious exemptions to them have not.