For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

You are a hater. If you don't have a group of people to treat like crap, you aren't happy. I think that much is quite clear. You even go so far as to try to convince others that YOU are the victim. Lol.

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

I wonder if you think that the bigots haven't already thought of and tried your approach? Lol. Sorry, but your religious freedom ends when you violate another person's civil rights or when you discriminate against a group of people. That is just the way it is here in our secular society, and that is the way it should be. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to skirt the law. It is NOT your religious right to treat other people like shit.

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

 

[martybegan]

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

Look, the more you speak, the more you show your ignorance of the law.

Considering I think the laws are wrong, I am not ignoring them.

 

[martybegan]

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

I wonder if you think that the bigots haven't already thought of and tried your approach? Lol. Sorry, but your religious freedom ends when you violate another person's civil rights or when you discriminate against a group of people. That is just the way it is here in our secular society, and that is the way it should be. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to skirt the law. It is NOT your religious right to treat other people like shit.

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

 

[ChrisL]

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

Look, the more you speak, the more you show your ignorance of the law.

Considering I think the laws are wrong, I am not ignoring them.

The laws are not wrong. You are wrong. These laws have already been challenged by bigots like you. It has been determined that a person's civil rights outweigh your religious superstitions. Understand?

 

[ChrisL]

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

I wonder if you think that the bigots haven't already thought of and tried your approach? Lol. Sorry, but your religious freedom ends when you violate another person's civil rights or when you discriminate against a group of people. That is just the way it is here in our secular society, and that is the way it should be. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to skirt the law. It is NOT your religious right to treat other people like shit.

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

 

[ChrisL]

It has been determined in the State of Oregon, that your religious views and superstitions are not a good enough reason to discriminate against entire groups of people. If you do this, you will be sued by the state for not following the law. If you think you cannot follow the law, then you don't have to open a "public accommodation" business. Simple.

This is because, the "public" includes gays, blacks, and other people you might not like.

 

[Katzndogz]

People can still discriminate. They just need to be more clever at it.

 

[ChrisL]

People can still discriminate. They just need to be more clever at it.

Sure they can. What they cannot do is come out and SAY that they will refuse to serve one group or another group. That is a violation of the law when you are running a business. You cannot openly and blatantly discriminate against your customers or potential customers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

All religions use selective readings of their texts to live by.

Religion is flexible that way for the believer.

So even though you may be technically correct there is no reason why a christian cannot selectively interpret their bible to use as a guide for their life.'

It is not about religious technicalities it is about individual rights and freedoms. Chief among these is the individual right to discrimination.

Discrimination is a basic human right regardless of how one discriminates. It is nothing more than the free and peaceful association or disassociation with others based on preference. It harms no one and is no one else business least of all the governments

How well do you suppose our society would function if everyone had the right to discriminate with each using their own religious interpretations to do so ?

It wouldn't.

Sure it would and does already.

Yeah, ok.

 

[Skylar]

So segregation now, segregation forever? As you seem to not only support discrimination against say, black folks.....but consider such bigotry 'sacred'.

This isn't an issue of race. It's ideology vs ideology. Gay sex isn't a thing. It's an activity. And an activity that Christians do not approve of. Homophiles come in all races and both genders. The only binding thing between them is what they do for sex. This is what Christians object to. This is NOT a racial issue.

That false premise is going to be buried six feet under in the very near future. Enjoy lying for now while you still can.

The false premise is yours...as you're jumping into the middle of conversation you're not a part of and isn't limited to the topic you've raised. As what I'm responding to isn't limited to gays or Christians.

But the 'sacred right to discriminate'. Period.

If you'd like to address that supposed 'sacred right', feel free. But that's the premise of the conversation you blundered into.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

You're offering us your personal opinion on a matter of law. And then ignoring the law.

You may consider the law irrelevant to a legal discussion. But no rational person ever would.

Try again.

 

[mdk]

So segregation now, segregation forever? As you seem to not only support discrimination against say, black folks.....but consider such bigotry 'sacred'.

This isn't an issue of race. It's ideology vs ideology. Gay sex isn't a thing. It's an activity. And an activity that Christians do not approve of. Homophiles come in all races and both genders. The only binding thing between them is what they do for sex. This is what Christians object to. This is NOT a racial issue.

That false premise is going to be buried six feet under in the very near future. Enjoy lying for now while you still can.

The false premise is yours...as you're jumping into the middle of conversation you're not a part of and isn't limited to the topic you've raised. As what I'm responding to isn't limited to gays or Christians.

But the 'sacred right to discriminate'. Period.

If you'd like to address that supposed 'sacred right', feel free. But that's the premise of the conversation you blundered into.

If Sil didn't have false premises she would have none. Have you been contacted by the FBI yet? I hear you're a part of the conspiracy now. lol

 

[Skylar]

I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.

I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Really? Printing can be anything from a book of baby ducks to hardcore porn.
A cake is a cake. Apples and oranges my friend.

No, it isn't. It is exactly the same thing. If you sell a product or a service then you cannot refuse to sell that product or service to someone when it falls within a protected class. What that product or service might be is irrelevant.

I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.

So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?

It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.

Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?

The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?

 

[Skylar]

No, it isn't. It is exactly the same thing. If you sell a product or a service then you cannot refuse to sell that product or service to someone when it falls within a protected class. What that product or service might be is irrelevant.

I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.

So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?

It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.

Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?

The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?

I'd say that text on a cake would be speech. But the cake itself? Its just cake.

 

[ChrisL]

No, it isn't. It is exactly the same thing. If you sell a product or a service then you cannot refuse to sell that product or service to someone when it falls within a protected class. What that product or service might be is irrelevant.

I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.

So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?

It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.

Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?

The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?

Apparently it is very very difficult for some people to understand that this is not the 1950s and no, they are not allowed to discriminate in their business practices. I think these people got left behind in the 1950s or something. It's really strange that they would think their religious preoccupations would have any role in the laws related to fair business practice, civil rights, and anti discrimination. Apparently, they also miss the fact that the anti discrimination laws were created just BECAUSE of people who made the exact same claims that they are making. The states realized that this unfriendly and hostile environment creates for bad business, and that is what compels the state.

 

[Jroc]

LOL..You're one of the most bigoted, miserable, haters on the board. You hate Jews ,Christians, "rich people" insurance companies, business owners, America, ect ..You're a joke

Well, let's see now.

No problem with Jews. Have no use for Zionists.

Have no problem with Christians. DO have a problem with "Christians" who want to inflict their superstitions on the rest of us while missing everything Jesus had to say.

Have no problem with Rich people who pay their fair share.

Insurance companies that take people's money and then cheat them. Yes. I have a problem with that. Why dont you?

Have no problem with business owners who play by the rules.

As for America. I served my country in the Armed forces, and I would NEVER put a foreign flag equal to America's... unlike you.

LOL... you're a lying sac of shit...why are "Jews hated wherever they go" "Russia won WWII not the U.S." What's "there far share"? we should leave it up to people like you to decide? how much a person a allowed to make? "The U.S. would be better off as part of Canada" Just some things off the top of my head that your America hating, Jew hating, dumb ass has said. Nidal Hasan was in the military, as was Tim Mcveih, So the fact that your dumb ass, went into the army for a couple of years to get money for collage doesn't mean shit to me

 

[Jroc]

I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.

So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?

It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.

Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?

The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?

Apparently it is very very difficult for some people to understand that this is not the 1950s and no, they are not allowed to discriminate in their business practices. I think these people got left behind in the 1950s or something. It's really strange that they would think their religious preoccupations would have any role in the laws related to fair business practice, civil rights, and anti discrimination. Apparently, they also miss the fact that the anti discrimination laws were created just BECAUSE of people who made the exact same claims that they are making. The states realized that this unfriendly and hostile environment creates for bad business, and that is what compels the state.

Politically correct Bullshit and you fall right in line...this people could simply go to other bakery

 

[Ravi]

I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.

I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.