CDZ I want to know why it is acceptable to exclude homosexuals

[Nosmo King]

You must not think that much about our nation if you believe we cannot fix roads, educate our children, defend our shores, solve poverty and yet not extend equal rights to every citizen.

Are we doing it?

EOM

I pray we are doing our level best. So why deny Gays the exact same rights you and I enjoy? What makes them such an easy punching bag?

Why is it so easy for you to dismiss equal treatment under law as a mere diversion?

I can't speak for you, but equal rights in a nation that bills itself as the "Land of the Free" is a lie unless all its citizens who have not committed crimes are not free. That's my political priority. Not candidates or incumbents and how much we either hate or adore them. That's just silly for a thinking person to be involved with. If you truly cherish your citizenship you should jealously advocate for equality.

Because if some of us are free while others are not, none of us is truly free.

probably wasting my breath, but here we go. Gay have equal rights. They have every right that every other American has. Here's the thing though. They do not have the right to get married. Marriage is between a man and a women. If two queers want some kind of union, fine. But it isn't marriage.

It most certainly is in 36 states and many religions now.

I could care less what some Godless judge or politicians say. Marriage is between a man and a women. What will it be next? Adults marrying preteens? People marrying their pets? Group marriage? Go ahead and laugh, but this is what some people want. Now you might claim that those people are a small minority. It could never happen. Well. We used to think the same way about gay marriage. Once a society begins to slide into moral decline it starts to gain momentum. It becomes more difficult to stop, let alone reverse. Keep your eye on the news. Sometime soon, you will see other groups coming forward to get their "equal rights". I believe nambla is already trying to gain legitimacy. Think it could never happen? You're wrong. Human depravity knows no bounds. Remember that.

Here's why you're wrong.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is basically contract law. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity, the married couple. The contract provides; the property of each of the newly weds is now a joint custody, one or both of the spouses may legally change their names, the couple may file joint tax returns, visit each other in the hospital. The contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. The contract may be broken in special courts. Both spouses must be consenting adults of legal age, perhaps a blood test is required.

Animals, children and more than two spouses are not eligible to enter into civil contracts.

The state does not sanctify the marriage, nor is any sanctification required. That's up to the spouses. People are married in many varied venues with just as many varied eccumenical ceremonies and rituals.

Gays have proven to be responsible citizens in every way. They own businesses and property, they serve proudly in our armed forces, they pay taxes, they play active and beneficial services in community and civic organizations, our schools, first responders, churches and synagogues.

Should Americans be excluded from access to contract law simply because a few folks find them "icky"?

 

[Mr.Right]

Are we doing it?

EOM

I pray we are doing our level best. So why deny Gays the exact same rights you and I enjoy? What makes them such an easy punching bag?

Why is it so easy for you to dismiss equal treatment under law as a mere diversion?

I can't speak for you, but equal rights in a nation that bills itself as the "Land of the Free" is a lie unless all its citizens who have not committed crimes are not free. That's my political priority. Not candidates or incumbents and how much we either hate or adore them. That's just silly for a thinking person to be involved with. If you truly cherish your citizenship you should jealously advocate for equality.

Because if some of us are free while others are not, none of us is truly free.

probably wasting my breath, but here we go. Gay have equal rights. They have every right that every other American has. Here's the thing though. They do not have the right to get married. Marriage is between a man and a women. If two queers want some kind of union, fine. But it isn't marriage.

It most certainly is in 36 states and many religions now.

I could care less what some Godless judge or politicians say. Marriage is between a man and a women. What will it be next? Adults marrying preteens? People marrying their pets? Group marriage? Go ahead and laugh, but this is what some people want. Now you might claim that those people are a small minority. It could never happen. Well. We used to think the same way about gay marriage. Once a society begins to slide into moral decline it starts to gain momentum. It becomes more difficult to stop, let alone reverse. Keep your eye on the news. Sometime soon, you will see other groups coming forward to get their "equal rights". I believe nambla is already trying to gain legitimacy. Think it could never happen? You're wrong. Human depravity knows no bounds. Remember that.

Here's why you're wrong.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is basically contract law. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity, the married couple. The contract provides; the property of each of the newly weds is now a joint custody, one or both of the spouses may legally change their names, the couple may file joint tax returns, visit each other in the hospital. The contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. The contract may be broken in special courts. Both spouses must be consenting adults of legal age, perhaps a blood test is required.

Animals, children and more than two spouses are not eligible to enter into civil contracts.

The state does not sanctify the marriage, nor is any sanctification required. That's up to the spouses. People are married in many varied venues with just as many varied eccumenical ceremonies and rituals.

Gays have proven to be responsible citizens in every way. They own businesses and property, they serve proudly in our armed forces, they pay taxes, they play active and beneficial services in community and civic organizations, our schools, first responders, churches and synagogues.

Should Americans be excluded from access to contract law simply because a few folks find them "icky"?

Here's why you're wrong. Government should have say in one's personal life. That includes marriage between two consenting adults.

 

[Nosmo King]

I pray we are doing our level best. So why deny Gays the exact same rights you and I enjoy? What makes them such an easy punching bag?

Why is it so easy for you to dismiss equal treatment under law as a mere diversion?

I can't speak for you, but equal rights in a nation that bills itself as the "Land of the Free" is a lie unless all its citizens who have not committed crimes are not free. That's my political priority. Not candidates or incumbents and how much we either hate or adore them. That's just silly for a thinking person to be involved with. If you truly cherish your citizenship you should jealously advocate for equality.

Because if some of us are free while others are not, none of us is truly free.

probably wasting my breath, but here we go. Gay have equal rights. They have every right that every other American has. Here's the thing though. They do not have the right to get married. Marriage is between a man and a women. If two queers want some kind of union, fine. But it isn't marriage.

It most certainly is in 36 states and many religions now.

I could care less what some Godless judge or politicians say. Marriage is between a man and a women. What will it be next? Adults marrying preteens? People marrying their pets? Group marriage? Go ahead and laugh, but this is what some people want. Now you might claim that those people are a small minority. It could never happen. Well. We used to think the same way about gay marriage. Once a society begins to slide into moral decline it starts to gain momentum. It becomes more difficult to stop, let alone reverse. Keep your eye on the news. Sometime soon, you will see other groups coming forward to get their "equal rights". I believe nambla is already trying to gain legitimacy. Think it could never happen? You're wrong. Human depravity knows no bounds. Remember that.

Here's why you're wrong.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is basically contract law. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity, the married couple. The contract provides; the property of each of the newly weds is now a joint custody, one or both of the spouses may legally change their names, the couple may file joint tax returns, visit each other in the hospital. The contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. The contract may be broken in special courts. Both spouses must be consenting adults of legal age, perhaps a blood test is required.

Animals, children and more than two spouses are not eligible to enter into civil contracts.

The state does not sanctify the marriage, nor is any sanctification required. That's up to the spouses. People are married in many varied venues with just as many varied eccumenical ceremonies and rituals.

Gays have proven to be responsible citizens in every way. They own businesses and property, they serve proudly in our armed forces, they pay taxes, they play active and beneficial services in community and civic organizations, our schools, first responders, churches and synagogues.

Should Americans be excluded from access to contract law simply because a few folks find them "icky"?

Here's why you're wrong. Government should have say in one's personal life. That includes marriage between two consenting adults.

The contract provided by the state's has been pretty effective at stabilizing society. Do you really think that throwing the baby out with the bath water is a responsible attitude?

 

[Politico]

Here's why you're wrong. Government should have say in one's personal life. That includes marriage between two consenting adults.

Government should have no say in someone's personal life you socialist.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Yeah! If only those gays would just let it go! They can find another bakery. They'll be able to hire a photographer who loves fags! What....the owner of the resort doesn't want butt fucking in his lovely hotel rooms? No problem. They can find another place. Why would they want to stay where they aren't wanted? Geez!

 

[G.T.]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

 

[Mr.Right]

Here's why you're wrong. Government should have say in one's personal life. That includes marriage between two consenting adults.

Government should have no say in someone's personal life you socialist.

oops I meant to say not. sorry about that.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

 

[G.T.]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

 

[JoeMoma]

Are we doing it?

EOM

I pray we are doing our level best. So why deny Gays the exact same rights you and I enjoy? What makes them such an easy punching bag?

Why is it so easy for you to dismiss equal treatment under law as a mere diversion?

I can't speak for you, but equal rights in a nation that bills itself as the "Land of the Free" is a lie unless all its citizens who have not committed crimes are not free. That's my political priority. Not candidates or incumbents and how much we either hate or adore them. That's just silly for a thinking person to be involved with. If you truly cherish your citizenship you should jealously advocate for equality.

Because if some of us are free while others are not, none of us is truly free.

probably wasting my breath, but here we go. Gay have equal rights. They have every right that every other American has. Here's the thing though. They do not have the right to get married. Marriage is between a man and a women. If two queers want some kind of union, fine. But it isn't marriage.

It most certainly is in 36 states and many religions now.

I could care less what some Godless judge or politicians say. Marriage is between a man and a women. What will it be next? Adults marrying preteens? People marrying their pets? Group marriage? Go ahead and laugh, but this is what some people want. Now you might claim that those people are a small minority. It could never happen. Well. We used to think the same way about gay marriage. Once a society begins to slide into moral decline it starts to gain momentum. It becomes more difficult to stop, let alone reverse. Keep your eye on the news. Sometime soon, you will see other groups coming forward to get their "equal rights". I believe nambla is already trying to gain legitimacy. Think it could never happen? You're wrong. Human depravity knows no bounds. Remember that.

Here's why you're wrong.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is basically contract law. The marriage license establishes a new legal entity, the married couple. The contract provides; the property of each of the newly weds is now a joint custody, one or both of the spouses may legally change their names, the couple may file joint tax returns, visit each other in the hospital. The contract establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. The contract may be broken in special courts. Both spouses must be consenting adults of legal age, perhaps a blood test is required.

Animals, children and more than two spouses are not eligible to enter into civil contracts.

The state does not sanctify the marriage, nor is any sanctification required. That's up to the spouses. People are married in many varied venues with just as many varied eccumenical ceremonies and rituals.

Gays have proven to be responsible citizens in every way. They own businesses and property, they serve proudly in our armed forces, they pay taxes, they play active and beneficial services in community and civic organizations, our schools, first responders, churches and synagogues.

Should Americans be excluded from access to contract law simply because a few folks find them "icky"?

More than two people are not eligible to enter civil contracts? Are you sure about that?
Contract - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[WinterBorn]

Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Why has it become socially acceptable to regard Christians as bigots for standing up for their faith? Why can't the advocates, activists and backers of LGBT rights measure themselves by their own standards?

If those Christians stood up for all the things that were against their faith, I would respect them. But divorce is as much a sin as homosexuality. Somehow that doesn't matter as much to Xtians.

 

[Mr.Right]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

How is that even relevant?

 

[G.T.]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

How is that even relevant?

If you take the time to read from the beginning of my and mac's exchange, you won't be lost.

Im not going to re shoot the whole scene for ya man, so to speak.

 

[Mr.Right]

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

How is that even relevant?

If you take the time to read from the beginning of my and mac's exchange, you won't be lost.

Im not going to re shoot the whole scene for ya man, so to speak.

What I meant was, people have a Constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Why should they have to give up that right if they want to run a business?

 

[G.T.]

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

How is that even relevant?

If you take the time to read from the beginning of my and mac's exchange, you won't be lost.

Im not going to re shoot the whole scene for ya man, so to speak.

What I meant was, people have a Constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Why should they have to give up that right if they want to run a business?

"constitutional right to freedom of conscience????"

what the fuckkkk all is that?

my conscience tells me to murder the fuck outta someone if they're found to have molested my daughter.

guess what? thats murder.

you invented a right, dude.




and public commerce is V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y to provide services within.

the fact that you enter into it voluntarily means that your rights have automatically not been infringed upon, just like if a private school's dress policy is no red pants? has fuck all to do with your rights when you enter into these agreements voluntarily.

 

[Mr.Right]

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

How is that even relevant?

If you take the time to read from the beginning of my and mac's exchange, you won't be lost.

Im not going to re shoot the whole scene for ya man, so to speak.

What I meant was, people have a Constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Why should they have to give up that right if they want to run a business?

"constitutional right to freedom of conscience????"

what the fuckkkk all is that?

my conscience tells me to murder the fuck outta someone if they're found to have molested my daughter.

guess what? thats murder.

you invented a right, dude.




and public commerce is V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y to provide services within.

the fact that you enter into it voluntarily means that your rights have automatically not been infringed upon, just like if a private school's dress policy is no red pants? has fuck all to do with your rights when you enter into these agreements voluntarily.

Let's use those perverts who wanted a gay wedding cake for example. How were their respective rights violated? The owners of that bakery did not advertise, or make, gay wedding cakes. They would have been happy to make a regular wedding cake, but those perverts wanted a gay one. How is it discrimination to refuse?

 

[G.T.]

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

How is that even relevant?

If you take the time to read from the beginning of my and mac's exchange, you won't be lost.

Im not going to re shoot the whole scene for ya man, so to speak.

What I meant was, people have a Constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Why should they have to give up that right if they want to run a business?

"constitutional right to freedom of conscience????"

what the fuckkkk all is that?

my conscience tells me to murder the fuck outta someone if they're found to have molested my daughter.

guess what? thats murder.

you invented a right, dude.




and public commerce is V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y to provide services within.

the fact that you enter into it voluntarily means that your rights have automatically not been infringed upon, just like if a private school's dress policy is no red pants? has fuck all to do with your rights when you enter into these agreements voluntarily.

Let's use those perverts who wanted a gay wedding cake for example. How were their respective rights violated? The owners of that bakery did not advertise, or make, gay wedding cakes. They would have been happy to make a regular wedding cake, but those perverts wanted a gay one. How is it discrimination to refuse?

Your ad homs against them aside, there's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.

There are wedding cakes, for gays, and if a business makes wedding cakes, and the gays are having a wedding, their rights to free commerce have been violated. The business is P-U-B-L-I-C which means the business does not get to violate their contract with the state when entering into commerce.

How is this even a hard issue?

 

[Mr.Right]

How is that even relevant?

If you take the time to read from the beginning of my and mac's exchange, you won't be lost.

Im not going to re shoot the whole scene for ya man, so to speak.

What I meant was, people have a Constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Why should they have to give up that right if they want to run a business?

"constitutional right to freedom of conscience????"

what the fuckkkk all is that?

my conscience tells me to murder the fuck outta someone if they're found to have molested my daughter.

guess what? thats murder.

you invented a right, dude.




and public commerce is V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y to provide services within.

the fact that you enter into it voluntarily means that your rights have automatically not been infringed upon, just like if a private school's dress policy is no red pants? has fuck all to do with your rights when you enter into these agreements voluntarily.

Let's use those perverts who wanted a gay wedding cake for example. How were their respective rights violated? The owners of that bakery did not advertise, or make, gay wedding cakes. They would have been happy to make a regular wedding cake, but those perverts wanted a gay one. How is it discrimination to refuse?

Your ad homs against them aside, there's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.

There are wedding cakes, for gays, and if a business makes wedding cakes, and the gays are having a wedding, their rights to free commerce have been violated. The business is P-U-B-L-I-C which means the business does not get to violate their contract with the state when entering into commerce.

How is this even a hard issue?

You're an idiot. No one should be forced to do something that believe is morally wrong. That's what this all boils down too. They didn't have any problem serving them before. But then they wanted a special cake, with the little queer couple on top. That's what they objected to. And once again, they didn't advertise gay wedding cakes.

 

[G.T.]

they aren't forced. They entered into commerce voluntarily duh