Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[JoeB131]

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

Do you? The thing is, this is settled law. If you own a business that is opened to the public, you have to serve everyone.

 

[Seawytch]

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not really about what consenting adults do in private. It's about two people loving each other and getting the same benefits as everyone else. That includes not being turned away from a public business in states with PA laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.

The bolded part is where it goes off the rails. No one has a "right" to not be rejected. Such a claim isn't even a right, it's a demand.

It is a demand, just like demanding to sit in the front of the bus. Or at the same counter as ........

No to worry too much, many states still allow businesses to overtly discriminate against LGBT folks.

Despite public opinion being opposed to such discrimination.

http://thehill.com/regulation/246683-poll-7-in-10-americans-support-lgbt-nondiscrimination-laws

 

[Frank'sRules]

Good idea, let's have Former Judge Roy Moore start making wedding cakes? Maybe that will humble him as the law sure doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

Where does it say that you lose your 1st amendment rights when you get a business license?

Where did Mr. Wifebeater lose his first Amendment rights?

He wasn't told he couldn't believe in Bronze Age Supersititions.
He wasn't told he couldn't express his Bronze Age Superstitions.

He was told that he had to provide the services his wife's company offered.

That pesky "free exercise thing" you like to ignore has an issue with it.

 

[martybegan]

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

Do you? The thing is, this is settled law. If you own a business that is opened to the public, you have to serve everyone.

Plessy was settled law as well. I guess that makes Citizen's United settled law as well, right?

More arguing the how instead of the why from people who don't want to argue the why, because it makes them look like fascist asshats.

 

[martybegan]

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

 

[Seawytch]

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

 

[martybegan]

I'm actually offended by how you treat the constitution, not who you decide to bugger every night. I'm also offended by the fact you think ruining someone over a non-essential service is the proper response to them not wanting to interact with you in one specific instance due to their morality.

But you are used to just going the "bigot bigot bigot" route, so even when countered with arguments for other reasons, you "run home to momma" because its your only real talking point.

Stop caring about what people think, and deal with how people treat you. more importantly, stop trying to control others when the only impact on you is an affront to your own ego or feelings.

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

 

[Seawytch]

How I treat the Constitution? You mean how the SCOTUS "treats the Constitution". PA laws have gone before them...and survived.

I only call people who express anti gay or racist views bigots.

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

Wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. The law requires I serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he only has to serve me in half.

 

[Pop23]

Where does it say that you lose your 1st amendment rights when you get a business license?

Where did Mr. Wifebeater lose his first Amendment rights?

He wasn't told he couldn't believe in Bronze Age Supersititions.
He wasn't told he couldn't express his Bronze Age Superstitions.

He was told that he had to provide the services his wife's company offered.

Gay whackos approve the above message

 

[Pop23]

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

Do you? The thing is, this is settled law. If you own a business that is opened to the public, you have to serve everyone.

As is most law, it is settled until it's challenged and overturned

 

[Pop23]

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

Wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. The law requires I serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he only has to serve me in half.

For now, if things go as they should, you will have to serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he won't have to serve you in any.

I'm cool with that.

 

[Pop23]

Good idea, let's have Former Judge Roy Moore start making wedding cakes? Maybe that will humble him as the law sure doesn't.

Funny, I think the Judge is likely cool with what he did, seems you continue to be a bit bothered by who you are.

 

[Silhouette]

Good idea, let's have Former Judge Roy Moore start making wedding cakes? Maybe that will humble him as the law sure doesn't.

Funny, I think the Judge is likely cool with what he did, seems you continue to be a bit bothered by who you are.

Yep. Swine can't stand decent people standing by their convictions. I guess Justice Moore just didn't want to bow to the horny devil.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Good idea, let's have Former Judge Roy Moore start making wedding cakes? Maybe that will humble him as the law sure doesn't.

Funny, I think the Judge is likely cool with what he did, seems you continue to be a bit bothered by who you are.

I have ethics so unethical do bother me.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Good idea, let's have Former Judge Roy Moore start making wedding cakes? Maybe that will humble him as the law sure doesn't.

Funny, I think the Judge is likely cool with what he did, seems you continue to be a bit bothered by who you are.

Yep. Swine can't stand decent people standing by their convictions. I guess Justice Moore just didn't want to bow to the horny devil.

Justice Moore didn't do his job and now he has lost it, again, and both times for disobeying the law sent down by higher courts. He wants to be a law unto himself. **** him and anyone that backs him.

 

[Seawytch]

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

Wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. The law requires I serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he only has to serve me in half.

For now, if things go as they should, you will have to serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he won't have to serve you in any.

I'm cool with that.

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Justice Moore didn't do his job and now he has lost it, again, and both times for disobeying the law sent down by higher courts. He wants to be a law unto himself. **** him and anyone that backs him.

No actually. The judicial council was clear that they suspended him for conduct violations and specifically NOT because he supported Alabama's decision to not allow gay marriage. It was to do with the protocol of ordering his underlings. Read my thread on it, post #1 to see the council's quote: The Phoenix Just Burned Again: Cheif Justice Moore Of Alabama: Should We Go-Fund Him?

 

[Silhouette]

For now is right...

Poll: Seven in 10 support LGBT nondiscrimination laws

But your perceived likely direction is all wrong.

Well then they should threaten and blackmail...er...I mean contact their representatives in Congress because even if 10 of 10 Americans wanted to let aberrant sex behaviors parade around as a "class" of people specially protected ( you know, above normal harassment laws that protect everyone anyway ), it still isn't the Law until Congress ratifies new language to the Civil Rights Act.

Pick up those batons, gossip columns, hire those private investigators.....er...I mean phones and pens and start getting a hold of your representatives.. "Law" by force of a minority using surreptitious means is also known as fascism. We do democracy in this country.