If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You might think that the federal government has the power to send men with guns to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals who are of the confused impression that they're entitled to someone elses private property, but you are mistaken.

I suspect that you would not feel quite the same way it a God fearing conservative were refused service in a place of public accommodation

How do you know those hay people were not conservatives? Not all gay people are Democrats.

If they had a valid reason for not serving them, then it would be within their rights as long as it wasnt discrimination, which is refusing them because of of a protected status. What happened here was not that, yes, because they are gay, he couldn't serve them as they wanted, but it wasnt because the Baker disliked gays, it was because he felt his faith would be compromised.

Imagine for a moment, the scenario was a person of any other nationality who was known for his anti religious views and wanted the bakery to make a cake for their anti religion gathering. You'd say the bakery was bigoted because of their nationality but in fact, that wouldn't have anything to do with it, just their views. The Baker would feel like his contributing to the gathering bu making a cake especially for them

The refusal would have nothing to do with the color of the skin of the patron but everything to do with that patrons views and his motives for commissioning the bakery.

Same thing applies here.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", that sounds pretty absolute to me.

Does that passage mean that I can have a grenade launcher or a tank? And you left out the part about a well regulated militia. It could be, and has been argued that it does not mean individual rights.

It's meaning is actually quite vague so it can't be an absolute right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The poor Christian bakers as victims! The article completely ignores that after the complaint was filed, the bakers encouraged others to attack the couple, publishing their names addresses and phone number on the bakers’ FaceBook page. The couple were harassed and had their lives and the lives of their children threatened as a result. The couple feared that they would lose custody of the children they were in the process of adopting as a result of the threats. Such good Christians these people. Threatening women and children.

A judge ordered the bakers to remove this information their FaceBook page to end this harassment and the bakers refused. This violation of the court order lead to the $135,000 fine.

The bakers have behaved abominably throughout. Now they’re boo hooing that they’ve been ruined. They deserve to be.

I agree, the Baker should not have published personal information like that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that also sounds pretty absolute to me.

Nope. Wrong again. What about cases where people think that animal or even human sacrifice is the "free exercise there of" ? How about grave robbing. ? Or, forcing a 12 year old into marriage in the name of religion? How about wife beating ?

And, I contend that using "the free exercise thereof" as an excuse to do harm to or to discriminate is also crossing the line.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

.....children invited to watch gay pride parades?.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

Of course you know that I'm going to say the gay couple. Perhaps it ruined their day in terms of the emotional effect as well as having been inconvenienced. It is not hard to imaging how it may have robbed them of just a little "happiness" Hell, maybe is cast a pale over the whole wedding. As for the Baker, I find it hard to believe that baking the cake would have caused him emotional harm unless he was so delusional that he believed that God would hate him or punish him for it, and if so that is his problem.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that also sounds pretty absolute to me.

Nope. Wrong again. What about cases where people think that animal or even human sacrifice is the "free exercise there of" ? How about grave robbing. ? Or, forcing a 12 year old into marriage in the name of religion? How about wife beating ?

And, I contend that using "the free exercise thereof" as an excuse to do harm to or to discriminate is also crossing the line.

So, if we can't allow religions that practice human sacrifice, we can't have religions that practice their beliefs of not making cakes for a gaybwedding ceremony?

Is that the distinction we are making here?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

.....children invited to watch gay pride parades?.....

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Thanks to the advancement of gay rights- despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it- gay people are able to live openly without the need for the fanfare and flamboyance. They don't need to have anonymous sex in bath houses, they have stable relationships because they can bring their partner home to their family, and can actually marry and have a family. But all of you rabid bigots who are obsessed with sex and think -or pretend to think- that gay people are just about sex, and focus on the salacious , sensationalized and the negative stereo types won't let go of that. You ***** about this behavior-real or imagined- but don't understand that if you cut them some slack and focus on the ways that they are like us in more ways than they are different and accept them as part of the fabric of society- maybe-just ******* maybe- the behaviors that you find so offensive will cease entirely. You cant have it both ways. Have a nice ******* day

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that also sounds pretty absolute to me.

Nope. Wrong again. What about cases where people think that animal or even human sacrifice is the "free exercise there of" ? How about grave robbing. ? Or, forcing a 12 year old into marriage in the name of religion? How about wife beating ?

And, I contend that using "the free exercise thereof" as an excuse to do harm to or to discriminate is also crossing the line.

So, if we can't allow religions that practice human sacrifice, we can't have religions that practice their beliefs of not making cakes for a gaybwedding ceremony?

Is that the distinction we are making here?

The point is that it is not an absolute right as you contended. I was not equating the two, but the question is , given that it is not an absolute right , where do we draw the line.?

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

.....children invited to watch gay pride parades?.....

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Thanks to the advancement of gay rights- despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it- gay people are able to live openly without the need for the fanfare and flamboyance. They don't need to have anonymous sex in bath houses, they have stable relationships because they can bring their partner home to their family, and can actually marry and have a family. But all of you rabid bigots who are obsessed with sex and think -or pretend to think- that gay people are just about sex, and focus on the salacious , sensationalized and the negative stereo types won't let go of that. You ***** about this behavior-real or imagined- but don't understand that if you cut them some slack and focus on the ways that they are like us in more ways than they are different and accept them as part of the fabric of society- maybe-just ******* maybe- the behaviors that you find so offensive will cease entirely. You cant have it both ways. Have a nice ******* day

It's just that the graphic sex acts in public at the pride parades are done with hopes that children will be there watching. Ever hear of an LGBT denouncing these parades? Me neither.

Sorry but nobody is allowed to get behind a culture club like that. It's illegal to condone those lifestyles that unanimously embrace that "with pride".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?

.....children invited to watch gay pride parades?.....

Get your mind out of the gutter. Why are you so obsessed with children? For the record, I don't think that children should be exposed to explicit sexual behavior either. I just don't know to what extent that actually happens any more at those gay pride events. I have a feeling that it largely a thing of the past when gays had to use militant shock theater to get attention.

Thanks to the advancement of gay rights- despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it- gay people are able to live openly without the need for the fanfare and flamboyance. They don't need to have anonymous sex in bath houses, they have stable relationships because they can bring their partner home to their family, and can actually marry and have a family. But all of you rabid bigots who are obsessed with sex and think -or pretend to think- that gay people are just about sex, and focus on the salacious , sensationalized and the negative stereo types won't let go of that. You ***** about this behavior-real or imagined- but don't understand that if you cut them some slack and focus on the ways that they are like us in more ways than they are different and accept them as part of the fabric of society- maybe-just ******* maybe- the behaviors that you find so offensive will cease entirely. You cant have it both ways. Have a nice ******* day

It's just that the graphic sex acts in public at the pride parades are done with hopes that children will be there watching. Ever hear of an LGBT denouncing these parades? Me neither.
Is that supposed to be an appropriate response to my post? Rather pathetic I should say. Your ridiculous obsession with the idea that gays target children is dishonest and disgusting. You fail to make a single, intelligent or appropriate comment on the points that I made. It is quite clear that you're intellectually vapid and more than a little insane. Any denigrated minority is will engage in outrageous and shocking behavior to have their voices heard Yet you continue your bizarre vendetta against them while expecting them to conform to your standards of behavior. Is it possible that you are so ******* stupid as to not understand how ridiculous you are? Apparently the answer is yes.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks to the advancement of gay rights despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it

There are no such things as gay rights. There are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights do not come as groups. Rights come as individuals. In perpetuating the notion of group rights (gay rights, for example) as opposed to Individual rights, you, yourself, are openly demonstrating a mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as Individuals. How is that no less bigoted than those to whom you openly apply the label? By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality rather than viewing humans as Individuals, you, yourself, are perpetuating bigotry. Do you not realize this?

No, PP. What you're advancing is the midset that Individuals should be viewed strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals. Which, of course, is the traditional collectivist mindset. The mindset that there is no Individual. That there is only the collective.

In fact, what you've mentioned here is reflective of Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. (As a courtesy, I'll link it - http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html). What Mussolini had mentioned is strikingly something along your lines What Benito had said was that ''In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.''

Now, what he's saying is that you, the Individual do not matter. That you as the Individual have no rights. And that the only thing that matters is the collective. The theoretical greater good.

But the truth, PP, is that there is no greater good. There is no collective. There is only special interest groups. Lobbyists. Politicians. People who have influence using the power of law to claim that they are protecting the collective, but the reality is that they are only enriching themselves.

Again. No such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights.

 

[Seawytch]

Last night Sarah Sanders was refused service at a restaurant because she works for the president of the USA. I thought discrimination was illegal. She should file a discrimination suit on Monday.

This is another example of the "tolerant " left. They are the most intolerant beings on planet earth. The only good thing about this is that they are destroying the democrat party. The party of Kennedy and Truman is DEAD.

When you're successful in getting bigoted liars identified as a protected class because the have historically suffered discrimination, you'll have a point.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

 

[Redfish]

Last night Sarah Sanders was refused service at a restaurant because she works for the president of the USA. I thought discrimination was illegal. She should file a discrimination suit on Monday.

This is another example of the "tolerant " left. They are the most intolerant beings on planet earth. The only good thing about this is that they are destroying the democrat party. The party of Kennedy and Truman is DEAD.

When you're successful in getting bigoted liars identified as a protected class because the have historically suffered discrimination, you'll have a point.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant.

Hmmm, but we have to be tolerant of intolerants like antifa, BLM, gay pride, La rasa, and the democrat party in general? How about colleges that ban conservative speakers? Are they tolerant?

what exactly makes Sarah Sanders a bigoted liar in your opinion? How was the owner of that restaurant a victim of past discrimination?

 

[Redfish]

Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.

As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.

You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.

But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.

Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.

good points. how is refusing to serve a member of the presidents staff any different than refusing to serve gays? or how does it differ from a college that refuses to allow a conservative to give a speech?

Either we have freedom or we don't, nothing subtle or confusing about it. Its an absolute.