Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[Antares]

I answered your question(s). It is the SAME as my reply to post 124.

People are basically able to discriminate, but it should not be sanctioned and codified by any law.

How about you address them one at a time like they were asked? Here they are again for your convenience.

What about the gay printer who is asked to print posters saying Gays are degenerates and unnatural pieces of shit. Should they be compelled to fill that order?

Or the black baker who is approached to bake a cake for the KKK with the confederate stars and bars and a burning cross. Can they legally discriminate?

Here's a good one, should a Jewish photographer be required to provide their service to a Nazi group wanting to reenact gassing people in Poland?

Tell me, where does the right of the public end when it comes to dictating if a business man has the freedom to pursue a living in a manner of his choice?

Once again it will be fun to see how you attempt to deflect and change the subject on this one.

I saw them, I read them, I gave you my answer to all of them. If you want to copy and paste them after each one, go for it. Or maybe you can come up with some more absurd examples?

Where will you build those "Re-Education" camps you'd put us in komrade?

 

[Moonglow]

@ Moonglow

You worship a false jesus.

I don't worship any deities.

Not true, you have decided that man is god, that YOU are god....and you have decided that you and only you have the truth market cornered.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite...the hypocrite who hasn't even the courage to acknowledge that there is ANY truth but that truth he wishes to foist upon everyone else.

....and when that truth is challenged you and people like you e.g. Bgfrn resort to name calling and character denigration.

You are weak and useless kid....and that impotence grates on you so you lash out in hatred ......you were raised very badly.

What are you 80 years old? If I'm a kid....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Read the Ten Commandments. Which one says, "Thou shalt not be gay"?

If it's such a terrible sin, why didn't God mention it to Moses? And why didn't Jesus ever say anything about it during his entire life on Earth? Maybe it isn't that big of a deal.

Just how many times DID your mother drop you on your head as a baby?

First of all, Brain Trust, have you ever taken a close look at a Bible? They're fairly big books. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why, if the Ten Commandments are the sum total of God's instructions on life and sin, there are so many more pages to that sucker?

Second of all, Moses appears in the Bible in Exodus, the second book. Leviticus, the third book, is a compilation of the laws the Israelites lived under after leaving Egypt in search of the Promised Land. These laws are known as the Law of Moses, because they were compiled by him. They include a description of homosexuality as "an abomination", so I think it's safe to say that God DID say something to Moses. Moses certainly seemed to think so.

Third, the same point about the Ten Commandments applies to the words of Jesus. Christ's ministry on Earth only spanned about three years. If the words He spoke while here were intended to be the sum total of God's instructions on life and sin, why are there so many more pages?

Completely aside from that puzzler, Jesus DID say a couple of things that are noteworthy in this context. In Matthew 5:17, He says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets." The Law would be the aforementioned Law of Moses.

Furthermore, Jesus did condemn adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19), aka sex of any kind outside of marriage. And He did go to the trouble of defining marriage as He saw it: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

This has, of course, all been pointed out many times before, and I find it very hard to believe that you have never seen it. Therefore, I can only assume that you think being deliberately obtuse is somehow a valid defense. It isn't.

How many times did Jesus say to hate people? How many times did he refuse his services to non-heretosexuals?

Applying your personal opinion to things as though it was objective truth is another way of saying, "I have ****-all to say, but I'm going to bore everyone by saying it over and over".

Just because you have personally decided that something is hate doesn't mean it is, and if your argument is yet again based on everyone allowing you to set the parameters of the debate, you've lost . . . again. I suppose you're used to it, though.

You can keep repeating that "Jesus didn't deny services" line until your face turns purple. Won't make it clever.

 

[OKTexas]

I answered your question(s). It is the SAME as my reply to post 124.

People are basically able to discriminate, but it should not be sanctioned and codified by any law.

How about you address them one at a time like they were asked? Here they are again for your convenience.

What about the gay printer who is asked to print posters saying Gays are degenerates and unnatural pieces of shit. Should they be compelled to fill that order?

Or the black baker who is approached to bake a cake for the KKK with the confederate stars and bars and a burning cross. Can they legally discriminate?

Here's a good one, should a Jewish photographer be required to provide their service to a Nazi group wanting to reenact gassing people in Poland?

Tell me, where does the right of the public end when it comes to dictating if a business man has the freedom to pursue a living in a manner of his choice?

Once again it will be fun to see how you attempt to deflect and change the subject on this one.

I saw them, I read them, I gave you my answer to all of them. If you want to copy and paste them after each one, go for it. Or maybe you can come up with some more absurd examples?

No problem, I'm done with thread and the cowards on the left like you, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. So to sum it all up you're a statist freak. **** OFF!!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you even know that you are a bigot?

Just the sort of pig ignorance I expect from your type......sorry pigs..

In other words, you got nuthin.

You condone your own bigotry in the name of "fairness" and "freedom"....and you refuse to see the Gospel in its entirety....you only like the bits and pieces that "fit" your very own "belief" system.

One wonders if it was his "theologian" grandmother who taught him to cherrypick Scripture that way, or if he learned that later.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I completely understand your position now, thanks to Cecilie1200's honest and succinct statement:



And take solace, America has seen your ilk before in our history.

And back then, your ilk said those '*******' are "free" to choose another bakery.

Hey, I found a picture of Antares, Cecilie and OKTexas

(smile) Rest easy in your own "bigotry" and "hatred" it is "justified" in the smugness you feel when YOU hate others that disagree with you.

You've been badly out debated here....so you resort to this

I understand.

Damn if facts don't get in the way.

Yes, we've noticed how often you have that problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you even know that you are a bigot?

Just the sort of pig ignorance I expect from your type......sorry pigs..

Your "selective" Christianity has been duly noted and judged by your god.

Fortunately for him, Obama likes that sort of crap.

 

[Moonglow]

(smile) Rest easy in your own "bigotry" and "hatred" it is "justified" in the smugness you feel when YOU hate others that disagree with you.

You've been badly out debated here....so you resort to this

I understand.

Damn if facts don't get in the way.

Yes, we've noticed how often you have that problem.

you should, since you have nothing more in life to live for.

 

[Antares]

Just the sort of pig ignorance I expect from your type......sorry pigs..

In other words, you got nuthin.

You condone your own bigotry in the name of "fairness" and "freedom"....and you refuse to see the Gospel in its entirety....you only like the bits and pieces that "fit" your very own "belief" system.

One wonders if it was his "theologian" grandmother who taught him to cherrypick Scripture that way, or if he learned that later.

Actually I think he is gay and ashamed of it.....I think his family probably rejected him for who and what he is and this is the only way he can deal with it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wondering if someone could explain this to me...

You don't hear many stories of a Christian business owner refusing to serve someone who uses the Lord's name in vein, or someone who works on Sunday (by choice), or someone who commits adultery, or someone who worships idols, or someone who gambles/drinks a lot, or someone who doesn't honor his/her parents, etc, but you DO hear stories of Christian business owners refusing to serve a gay customers.

Why just this ONE sin, lol? Why are all the other sins ignored?

I think that's a fair question....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/u...-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?_r=0

I pointed this out yesterday to a loud chorus of stunned silence. The answer is simple. This is not about religion. It's about hatred of homosexuals.

Religion is brought into it in this country, from a legal perspective, because the bigots believe it's a loophole through which discrimination can be made legal.

Religion is not some sort of magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution.

That can be very much equated to denying people of faith the freedom to choose, if they wish, to express their belief in school. Misusing a quote to formulate a loop hole that supports one group's preferred interpreted view, in order to keep those who don't share in their atheistic perception the free ability to openly pursue after their own conscience. A freedom from religion mentality that coerces others into accepting the preferred secular mandate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I owned a business I would take who ever monies were extended to me to make a profit.

Who cares?

My wallet.

Then go tell your wallet about your opinions.

 

[Bfgrn]

How about you address them one at a time like they were asked? Here they are again for your convenience.

What about the gay printer who is asked to print posters saying Gays are degenerates and unnatural pieces of shit. Should they be compelled to fill that order?

Or the black baker who is approached to bake a cake for the KKK with the confederate stars and bars and a burning cross. Can they legally discriminate?

Here's a good one, should a Jewish photographer be required to provide their service to a Nazi group wanting to reenact gassing people in Poland?

Tell me, where does the right of the public end when it comes to dictating if a business man has the freedom to pursue a living in a manner of his choice?

Once again it will be fun to see how you attempt to deflect and change the subject on this one.

I saw them, I read them, I gave you my answer to all of them. If you want to copy and paste them after each one, go for it. Or maybe you can come up with some more absurd examples?

No problem, I'm done with thread and the cowards on the left like you, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. So to sum it all up you're a statist freak. **** OFF!!!!!

WTF don't you understand? I AGREE, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. BUT, NO LAWS should be written to sanction, codify or encourage DISCRIMINATION.

 

[Moonglow]

Religious people have always been that way....They need their religion to justify their actions...but,if it happens to them, they sure cry you a river...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I completely understand your position now, thanks to Cecilie1200's honest and succinct statement:



And take solace, America has seen your ilk before in our history.

And back then, your ilk said those '*******' are "free" to choose another bakery.

Hey, I found a picture of Antares, Cecilie and OKTexas

(smile) Rest easy in your own "bigotry" and "hatred" it is "justified" in the smugness you feel when YOU hate others that disagree with you.

You've been badly out debated here....so you resort to this

I understand.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Please tell me what part of Cecilie1200's declaration you disagree with?

America was founded on the tenets of the Declaration of Independence. Now we have the Declaration of Discrimination.

What part SHOULD he disagree with? You keep repeating this like you think it's going to shame me. It's MY QUOTE, and unlike leftists, I don't run my gums without thinking about it and then have to walk it back. The more you say it, the more proud I am of defending the rights of freedom of thought, expression, and association for ALL people, not just the ones I like.

People used to know the quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now the quote seems to be, "I may not agree with what you say, and if I don't, I'll see your ass in jail!"

If that's the position you want to take, go ahead (because I defend the rights of people to be stupid in public), but don't expect me to be ashamed of not sharing it.

 

[Bfgrn]

(smile) Rest easy in your own "bigotry" and "hatred" it is "justified" in the smugness you feel when YOU hate others that disagree with you.

You've been badly out debated here....so you resort to this

I understand.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Please tell me what part of Cecilie1200's declaration you disagree with?

America was founded on the tenets of the Declaration of Independence. Now we have the Declaration of Discrimination.

What part SHOULD he disagree with? You keep repeating this like you think it's going to shame me. It's MY QUOTE, and unlike leftists, I don't run my gums without thinking about it and then have to walk it back. The more you say it, the more proud I am of defending the rights of freedom of thought, expression, and association for ALL people, not just the ones I like.

People used to know the quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now the quote seems to be, "I may not agree with what you say, and if I don't, I'll see your ass in jail!"

If that's the position you want to take, go ahead (because I defend the rights of people to be stupid in public), but don't expect me to be ashamed of not sharing it.

People can be stupid in public, but discrimination should not be sanctioned, codified or encourage by any written laws.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please tell me what part of Cecilie1200's declaration you disagree with?

America was founded on the tenets of the Declaration of Independence. Now we have the Declaration of Discrimination.

What part SHOULD he disagree with? You keep repeating this like you think it's going to shame me. It's MY QUOTE, and unlike leftists, I don't run my gums without thinking about it and then have to walk it back. The more you say it, the more proud I am of defending the rights of freedom of thought, expression, and association for ALL people, not just the ones I like.

People used to know the quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now the quote seems to be, "I may not agree with what you say, and if I don't, I'll see your ass in jail!"

If that's the position you want to take, go ahead (because I defend the rights of people to be stupid in public), but don't expect me to be ashamed of not sharing it.

People can be stupid in public, but discrimination should not be sanctioned, codified or encourage by any written laws.

discrimination isn't being sanctioned. Choice is being allowed. There is a huge difference between allowing people to be free and endorsing every behavior they do.

 

[OKTexas]

I saw them, I read them, I gave you my answer to all of them. If you want to copy and paste them after each one, go for it. Or maybe you can come up with some more absurd examples?

No problem, I'm done with thread and the cowards on the left like you, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. So to sum it all up you're a statist freak. **** OFF!!!!!

WTF don't you understand? I AGREE, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. BUT, NO LAWS should be written to sanction, codify or encourage DISCRIMINATION.

So every citizen who makes a decision on personal values and conscience should be subject to civil and criminal penalties that could cost them everything they worked for, no legal protections. Yep, you're a statist, I can only hope you find yourself in court looking at bankruptcy for standing up for your beliefs, if you have any worth standing up for.

 

[Avatar4321]

No problem, I'm done with thread and the cowards on the left like you, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. So to sum it all up you're a statist freak. **** OFF!!!!!

WTF don't you understand? I AGREE, those examples are no worse than forcing someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage to participate in in a gay wedding. BUT, NO LAWS should be written to sanction, codify or encourage DISCRIMINATION.

So every citizen who makes a decision on personal values and conscience should be subject to civil and criminal penalties that could cost them everything they worked for, no legal protections. Yep, you're a statist, I can only hope you find yourself in court looking at bankruptcy for standing up for your beliefs, if you have any worth standing up for.

First amendment only applies for people who agree with him.

 

[Moonglow]

If the law passes how will companies know who is gay and who is not?

 

[Bfgrn]

What part SHOULD he disagree with? You keep repeating this like you think it's going to shame me. It's MY QUOTE, and unlike leftists, I don't run my gums without thinking about it and then have to walk it back. The more you say it, the more proud I am of defending the rights of freedom of thought, expression, and association for ALL people, not just the ones I like.

People used to know the quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now the quote seems to be, "I may not agree with what you say, and if I don't, I'll see your ass in jail!"

If that's the position you want to take, go ahead (because I defend the rights of people to be stupid in public), but don't expect me to be ashamed of not sharing it.

People can be stupid in public, but discrimination should not be sanctioned, codified or encourage by any written laws.

discrimination isn't being sanctioned. Choice is being allowed. There is a huge difference between allowing people to be free and endorsing every behavior they do.

Discrimination IS being sanctioned by this bill. Doing business with ANYONE does not equate to endorsing that persons behavior. This is a bill right out of Putin's Russia.