Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[ChrisL]

Please. This is nothing more than people using their religion as an excuse to hate because they don't like homosexuals. Why can't people just be honest? Don't blame your god for the fact that you find homosexuals to be yucky. They are STILL human beings and, no, you should not be able to discriminate against them. That violates their civil rights.

I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

 

[ChrisL]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I'm trying to figure out what right you actually have to discriminate against anyone.

Do you think you have a right to choose who your friends are?

That is not the same thing. When you run a business, you have to follow the rules. You are not special. You are the same as everyone else in the eyes of the law, even (gasp) the gays!!

 

[dblack]

I don't think it does. Equal rights is about being free to do what you want, to be who you are. It's not about forcing others to accept you.

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

Well your posts say otherwise. Everyone is actually protected under these laws, men, women, etc. So . . . what is your objection? You are still free to discriminate against people in your personal life, but not when you are doing business. And no, you are not forced to do anything since you don't have to open up a public accommodation business. When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you would be wrong. Read the law. If you want to discriminate, then you do not have a right to open a business. If you open a business, then you agree to the laws when you sign your business permit. End of story. These laws are not going to be overturned. Don't be silly. Lol.

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case.

Well, you brought it up.

 

[dblack]

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case.

Well, you brought it up.

No, you did, by claiming that I don't like gay people.

 

[dblack]

I know what the law is - generally, at least. And it's bad law. It's bad precedent. And every time we extend the precedent, more people will question it. That's the fatal flaw of the protected classes concept. I can't think of one good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from the protections offered by PA laws. If we're going to protect religious affiliation, gender, age, race, etc... we might as well include sexual preference. But to be fair, we should include everything. Every single irrational bias people might have should be illegal as a basis for discrimination.

And do you see the authoritarian corner that paints us into? The end-game of that conception of civil rights is to turn freedom of choice on its head. Instead of saying we have the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it doesn't hurt others, we end up with a legal standard that says we can't make any choices without providing a legitimate reason. That we can't hire who we want or work for who we want unless we offer justification that meets state approval.

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

Well your posts say otherwise.

They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.

When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case.

Well, you brought it up.

No, you did, by claiming that I don't like gay people.

Apparently you don't! Why else would you be okay with people (jerks) discriminating against them?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, hello? Everything is included. Gender, religion, blah, blah, blah. So there. No one can discriminate against anyone else. Where's the problem? I'll tell you. It's because you don't like gay people. That's all it really is. I don't feel sorry for those people who would run their business in such a manner. Sorry, I just don't.

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

Well your posts say otherwise.

They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.

When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.

All anyone has to do is read your posts. Your position is pretty clear. Who do you think you're fooling? Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.

It is not wrong. The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice. If you don't like it, oh well. I don't feel sorry for you one bit. Not one little bit. Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.

 

[dblack]

If you could only appreciate the ironic humor in that claim.

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

Well your posts say otherwise.

They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.

When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.

All anyone has to do is read your posts. Your position is pretty clear. Who do you think you're fooling? Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.

I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is not wrong. The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice. If you don't like it, oh well. I don't feel sorry for you one bit. Not one little bit. Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.

I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh? What's that? Don't even TELL me that you're going to tell me that you're gay. Or maybe you have a close gay family member. I've heard pretty much all of them by now.

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

Well your posts say otherwise.

They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.

When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.

All anyone has to do is read your posts. Your position is pretty clear. Who do you think you're fooling? Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.

I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is not wrong. The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice. If you don't like it, oh well. I don't feel sorry for you one bit. Not one little bit. Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.

I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I'm support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.

I think that you are wrong. Black people can now shop and eat where ever they want, so it works. There is always going to be resistance from the extremists.

 

[dblack]

It's none of your business, in any case. But I have no bias against gay people.

Well your posts say otherwise.

They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.

When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.

All anyone has to do is read your posts. Your position is pretty clear. Who do you think you're fooling? Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.

I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is not wrong. The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice. If you don't like it, oh well. I don't feel sorry for you one bit. Not one little bit. Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.

I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I'm support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.

I think that you are wrong. Black people can now shop and eat where ever they want, so it works. There is always going to be resistance from the extremists.

My point isn't that they don't work (for the most part, they have), and my opposition to them isn't based on the fact that people still resist. If a law is just, that shouldn't matter. My point is that the principle behind these laws undermines freedom and, ironically, equal protection. Despite your claim to the contrary, these laws don't protect everyone from bigotry and discrimination. They call out a few kinds of discrimination, those that are currently unpopular with voters, for suppression. We're adding more kinds of discrimination to the list, and that only seems "fair", but it exposes the problems inherent in giving government this kind of power. The more we expand it, the more it will expose the basic injustice of setting government up to override our personal decisions - even if it's for a "good" cause.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So if the best catering business in town is a Muslim or Jewish restaurant and I want them to prepare pork chops for my get together they're discriminating against me if they say 'no'.

*****SMILE*****

No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied. It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying. *sigh* I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Still have to wonder what kind of an arse would turn away business simply because a person is gay or whatever other silly reason they can come up with. What kind of person is that anyway?

It's not that hard to understand. They're the kind of people who hold a strong conviction that homosexuality, or some other activity they consider unwholesome, is bad for society and should be discouraged. You and I might not agree with them, but it ought to be their right to advocate for their views via their economic choices. Just the way any of us should be able to advocate for social change by the work we choose to do, and the way we spend our money.

This is the way we should be allowed to shape society rather than resorting to legal mandates.

In another thread someone was talking about the folly of legislating morality. And whoever said that was right. Government is there to protect us from bullies, not to tell us the morally right way to live. Instead, the way we should promote our ideas of moral virtue is by the choices we make, by the people and activities we support, and those we shun.

I think the main reason I started this thread is that we've lost our ability to distinguish between rights and privileges. A right is a liberty, a freedom of action. To protect a right means to ensure that no one is empowered to interfere with one's ability to exercise that right. In particular, to ensure that government isn't empowered to interfere. But protecting a right doesn't require that others enable or assist in the exercise of the right. That distinction seems to be getting lost somehow.

Equal rights under the law means that we all have the same rights, that government protects our freedoms equally, no matter who we are or what we choose to do. But it doesn't mean that government ensures that other people will accommodate our choices, or assist us in exercising our rights. I'm not sure how we ever got it in our heads that it does.

If this was truly about equal rights the judges and politicians that support it would support marriage rights for all mature willing companions.

Which means they would support marriage arrangements of all sorts that were formed by all mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[ChrisL]

No, you apparently don't understand the law and how it is applied. It has nothing to DO with the product you are supplying. *sigh* I wonder how many MORE times we will have to go through this?

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

It works the same for everyone. Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either. Targeted? Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.

 

[dblack]

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

It works the same for everyone. Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either. Targeted? Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.

The familiar refrain...

 

[ChrisL]

Well your posts say otherwise.

They really don't. I challenge you to show otherwise.

When you applied for a business license for such a business, you agreed to these laws by that act alone.

Yeah, I know. I think that's wrong.

All anyone has to do is read your posts. Your position is pretty clear. Who do you think you're fooling? Perhaps yourself but certainly not me.

I'm certainly not trying to fool anyone. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is not wrong. The states have every right to set their standards and regulations for business practice. If you don't like it, oh well. I don't feel sorry for you one bit. Not one little bit. Sorry, but I see you as the jerk and the "oppressor" in this situation.

I'm not asking for you to feel sorry for me. And I'm sorry you're taking it personally. But I think that anyone who has read my posts, here and elsewhere, can confirm that I have no interest in oppressing homosexuals, and that my issue here is one of principle, not personal bias. I'm support gay marriage rights and, as long as we're going to have PA laws and protected classes on the books as laws, I think sexual preference should be included. I do, however, think the concept behind those laws is corrosive and that they should be repealed.

I think that you are wrong. Black people can now shop and eat where ever they want, so it works. There is always going to be resistance from the extremists.

My point isn't that they don't work (for the most part, they have), and my opposition to them isn't based on the fact that people still resist. If a law is just, that shouldn't matter. My point is that the principle behind these laws undermines freedom and, ironically, equal protection. Despite your claim to the contrary, these laws don't protect everyone from bigotry and discrimination. They call out a few kinds of discrimination, those that are currently unpopular with voters, for suppression. We're adding more kinds of discrimination to the list, and that only seems "fair", but it exposes the problems inherent in giving government this kind of power. The more we expand it, the more it will expose the basic injustice of setting government up to override our personal decisions - even if it's for a "good" cause.

I think it is the rare person who behaves in this horrid way nowadays anyways. Well, regardless of how you feel about it, the states do in fact have the right to set the rules and regulations for businesses. No one said you had to like it. The fact is that the laws are not going to change in order to allow you to discriminate, and there is absolutely nothing unfair about the law. These things have already been raised and defeated in the past when black people were trying to gain civil rights.

 

[ChrisL]

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

It works the same for everyone. Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either. Targeted? Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.

The familiar refrain...

Just a fact.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You are free to attempt to explain.

While you're at it has any Jewish or Muslim bakeries in the USA ever been sued by the SSM crowd for refusing to make the product they desire?

*****SMILE*****

It's been explained MANY times now. It isn't about the product; it is about discriminating against a group or groups of people. The law that was referenced deals directly with discrimination which is ILLEGAL.

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

It works the same for everyone. Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either. Targeted? Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.

Which is a non-answer on your part and until some Muslim, Jewish, or other religion, bakeries are brought up on discrimination charges by the SSM crowd my view of the situation stands...

Those crying discrimination are no better than the ones they are accusing of discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

 

[dblack]

So what you're saying is if the bakery doesn't carry the fixings to make product asked for they don't have to comply.. Otherwise the Muslims and Jews are discriminating against me because I like to eat pork and since I also like a good wine with my meal the Muslims are really discriminating against me.

*****SMILE*****

That's right. If they don't have the equipment to make the product, then that would not fall under the anti discrimination laws. I also think that if they can prove that it would hurt their business (such as a request to make something that contained a hate slogan or something to that effect), then the business would also have a case to make. That is another story entirely though. You do NOT have any right, when conducting business, to discriminate against entire groups of people. The states realize that this makes for a hostile business environment and is just bad business practice. Pretty much the same thing as when black people weren't allowed in certain stores or places.

BTW... I do note that you've failed to address my question about the Muslim and Jewish bakeries being sued by the SSM crowd.

So long as the situation of only Christian bakeries being targeted my opinion on this subject is that the SSM crowd is no better than those they target when they cry discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

It works the same for everyone. Jewish and Muslim bakeries cannot legally discriminate against gay people either. Targeted? Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't really have to worry about that.

The familiar refrain...

Just a fact.

If only it were true. History tells a different story.