The Executive Director of New Jersey Pride GETS IT

[Mac1958]

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

 

[martybegan]

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.


.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

 

[Mac1958]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

I'm very gratified and hopeful seeing a few lefties beginning to say this whole thing has gone too far, and I'm definitely hoping this will create a momentum. The piece in the OP was very cool to see.

Their seemingly insatiable hunger for submission and control has to reach a point where it ultimately jumps the shark.

Um, hopefully.

.

 

[martybegan]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

I'm very gratified and hopeful seeing a few lefties beginning to say this whole thing has gone too far, and I'm definitely hoping this will create a momentum. The piece in the OP was very cool to see.

Their seemingly insatiable hunger for submission and control has to reach a point where it ultimately jumps the shark.

Um, hopefully.

.

Good luck. You are going to need it.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, you could not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this nation gay people are not protected from any form of discrimination. It is an idiotic notion that there is this attack on Christianity based on two or three instances where business violated an anti-discrimination law in one of the few places where those laws include gay people.

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

 

[paddymurphy]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

I'm very gratified and hopeful seeing a few lefties beginning to say this whole thing has gone too far, and I'm definitely hoping this will create a momentum. The piece in the OP was very cool to see.

Their seemingly insatiable hunger for submission and control has to reach a point where it ultimately jumps the shark.

Um, hopefully.

.

Insatiable hunger based on two or three cases. You are fucking delusional.

 

[Mac1958]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

I'm very gratified and hopeful seeing a few lefties beginning to say this whole thing has gone too far, and I'm definitely hoping this will create a momentum. The piece in the OP was very cool to see.

Their seemingly insatiable hunger for submission and control has to reach a point where it ultimately jumps the shark.

Um, hopefully.

.

Insatiable hunger based on two or three cases. You are fucking delusional.

Great, thanks.



.

 

[paddymurphy]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

I'm very gratified and hopeful seeing a few lefties beginning to say this whole thing has gone too far, and I'm definitely hoping this will create a momentum. The piece in the OP was very cool to see.

Their seemingly insatiable hunger for submission and control has to reach a point where it ultimately jumps the shark.

Um, hopefully.

.

Insatiable hunger based on two or three cases. You are fucking delusional.

Great, thanks.



.

You are welcome. Glad to help.

 

[martybegan]

I have never said this is an "attack on Christianity", ever.

This is about intimidation, capitulation, control.

.

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

 

[Mac1958]

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Yeah, as you said, I'm gonna need the luck.



.

 

[martybegan]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

I'm very gratified and hopeful seeing a few lefties beginning to say this whole thing has gone too far, and I'm definitely hoping this will create a momentum. The piece in the OP was very cool to see.

Their seemingly insatiable hunger for submission and control has to reach a point where it ultimately jumps the shark.

Um, hopefully.

.

Insatiable hunger based on two or three cases. You are fucking delusional.

Great, thanks.



.

Get used to it. Soon there will be an "Uncle Tom" reference for progressives who don't toe the party line, and for gays who want to go with a "live and let live" once they get full government neutrality (which I support).

 

[paddymurphy]

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

The only folks trying

If it were about intimidation, capitulation and control there would be more than the two or three actions you and others who share your view can find. It is legal to discriminate in most parts of the country. Gay people can and are fired; they are evicted; they are denied services on a daily basis and you are worried about the two or three instances where gay people took advantage of laws passed by the majority of the people's representatives to protect gay people from the harm of discrimination. It is not OK to simply require businesses that wish to discriminate to advertise that. It should be as illegal to refuse to to serve gay people; to refuse to employ them; to refuse to rent to them just as it is illegal to do that on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or ethnicity. Laws are, by their nature, compulsory. If they were not, they would not be laws, but suggestions. The only valid reason for a person to not have to comply with a law is when it creates an undue burden on their ability to exercise their faith. Providing services, for which one gets paid, to a wedding reception is not an undue burden on anyone.

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Noting intolerant about outlawing bigotry. And I have no problem with religion; my problem is with those, like you, who pervert it to be a weapon to be used against those who don't share your particular faith. God is real. The one you think you pray to, however, is not. You created your God in your image and he is one ugly bastard.

 

[Mac1958]

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

The only folks trying

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Noting intolerant about outlawing bigotry. And I have no problem with religion; my problem is with those, like you, who pervert it to be a weapon to be used against those who don't share your particular faith. God is real. The one you think you pray to, however, is not. You created your God in your image and he is one ugly bastard.

"Nothing intolerant about outlawing bigotry."

I see.

Do you understand that you're being a bigot right now?

.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Yeah, as you said, I'm gonna need the luck.



.

A little intelligence would help, but it appears that ship has sailed.

 

[Mac1958]

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Yeah, as you said, I'm gonna need the luck.



.

A little intelligence would help, but it appears that ship has sailed.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is dumb.

Third grade stuff, tedious.

.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

The only folks trying

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Noting intolerant about outlawing bigotry. And I have no problem with religion; my problem is with those, like you, who pervert it to be a weapon to be used against those who don't share your particular faith. God is real. The one you think you pray to, however, is not. You created your God in your image and he is one ugly bastard.

"Nothing intolerant about outlawing bigotry."

I see.

Do you understand that you're being a bigot right now?

.

I understand that you have no clue what bigotry is.

 

[Mac1958]

I understand that you have no clue what bigotry is.

Bigotry Define Bigotry at Dictionary.com

bigotry
[big-uh-tree]

noun, plural bigotries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.



This is just too easy.

.

 

[paddymurphy]

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

The only folks trying

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Noting intolerant about outlawing bigotry. And I have no problem with religion; my problem is with those, like you, who pervert it to be a weapon to be used against those who don't share your particular faith. God is real. The one you think you pray to, however, is not. You created your God in your image and he is one ugly bastard.

"Nothing intolerant about outlawing bigotry."

I see.

Do you understand that you're being a bigot right now?

.

I understand that you have no clue what bigotry is.

Bigotry Define Bigotry at Dictionary.com

bigotry

[big-uh-tree]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural bigotries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.



This is just too easy.

.

Cutting a pasting a definition does not equate with comprehension. I have complete tolerance of others beliefs. It is with their actions that I have a problem. You can believe that blacks are inferior or gay people are inferior, but you cannot refuse to do business with them. That is forcing them to abide by your beliefs and is the very definition of bigotry.

 

[Mac1958]

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

The only folks trying

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Noting intolerant about outlawing bigotry. And I have no problem with religion; my problem is with those, like you, who pervert it to be a weapon to be used against those who don't share your particular faith. God is real. The one you think you pray to, however, is not. You created your God in your image and he is one ugly bastard.

"Nothing intolerant about outlawing bigotry."

I see.

Do you understand that you're being a bigot right now?

.

I understand that you have no clue what bigotry is.

Bigotry Define Bigotry at Dictionary.com

bigotry

[big-uh-tree]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural bigotries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.



This is just too easy.

.

Cutting a pasting a definition does not equate with comprehension. I have complete tolerance of others beliefs. It is with their actions that I have a problem. You can believe that blacks are inferior or gay people are inferior, but you cannot refuse to do business with them. That is forcing them to abide by your beliefs and is the very definition of bigotry.

You tell me that I don't know what the definition of bigotry is and then chafe when I provide it.

So you don't understand that you're a bigot.

Okay, that was my guess anyway.

.

 

[martybegan]

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

And, as we all know, the couple would have to CHOOSE to file the complaint that leads ultimately to the fine.

When that couple files a complaint about an illegal alien, perhaps this whole meme won't be so transparent.

.

You are fighting an uphill battle here. The people that want everyone to conform to their moral code come more from your side these days than my side. Such is the nature of cultural/moral arguments. The cyclical nature is often overlooked by people who think everything always goes "forward".

The only folks trying

It is an undue burden, and is not needed to provide equal service to those gay couples that want that service provided. This is not systemic Jim Crow Discrimination, this is a few select individuals not wanting to participate, and your side deciding they have to be destroyed.

Do you personally think not wanting to work a Gay wedding deserves a $135k fine?

It is no burden to bake a cake.

It is if you are forced to do so under penalty of going against your moral code, or go out of business. On the other hand, going to another baker is definitely not a burden, and the hurt feelings that result are not "harm".

But you are not. It is not moral to refuse to allow a person to patronize your store or business because of your bigotry. There is no burden. Babe the fucking cake and then pray to your fake God to save your soul.

it's amazing you don't realize you are merely exchanging one form of intolerance for another. The only bigot in the thread is you. You are an anti-religious nutter.

Noting intolerant about outlawing bigotry. And I have no problem with religion; my problem is with those, like you, who pervert it to be a weapon to be used against those who don't share your particular faith. God is real. The one you think you pray to, however, is not. You created your God in your image and he is one ugly bastard.

Again, Lapsed Catholic at best here, so saying I pervert faith doesn't work, because at this point of my life I don't have much of it.

My issue is solely with government being able to force others to comply or else, and my main issue is that should only happen when there is a compelling government interest due to actual harm caused when said force is not applied.