Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

[Redfish]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

In that case it was government mandated discrimination, which is what you are supporting now.

How is it discrimination to require a business to NOT discriminate?

you just don't get it

but why don't you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with an anti-gay baker.

 

[Kondor3]

Is this goddamned thread still on its feet?

These butt-boys and carpet-munchers are getting far too much attention - disproportionate to their numbers and importance to society.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, give it a frigging rest, already.

We're too uppity?

nope, but you are asking the government to dictate what others are allowed to believe.

This issue is much bigger than gay marriage and bakers.

This is about freedom of belief and thought.

Do you fools really want a government that punishes its citizens if they do not think and say what the government dictates?

and over something as trivial as having to get another baker/photographer/hall for your wedding.

This isn't a black family being denied a hotel room at 11 PM at night, its not being denied gasoline in Iowa because you are gay, its not being told to sit in the back of the bus.

So...there's a level under which discrimination against fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is acceptable?

When that discrimination deals with the aberration and abomination and filth and uncleanness and degeneracy known as homosexuality? Absolutely.

Look at it as Disease Control... real-time ad hoc quarantine... a public health service.

 

[martybegan]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

In that case it was government mandated discrimination, which is what you are supporting now.

How is it discrimination to require a business to NOT discriminate?

When the requirement forces them to choose between their faith and their business.

 

[martybegan]

Is this goddamned thread still on its feet?

These butt-boys and carpet-munchers are getting far too much attention - disproportionate to their numbers and importance to society.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, give it a frigging rest, already.

We're too uppity?

nope, but you are asking the government to dictate what others are allowed to believe.

This issue is much bigger than gay marriage and bakers.

This is about freedom of belief and thought.

Do you fools really want a government that punishes its citizens if they do not think and say what the government dictates?

and over something as trivial as having to get another baker/photographer/hall for your wedding.

This isn't a black family being denied a hotel room at 11 PM at night, its not being denied gasoline in Iowa because you are gay, its not being told to sit in the back of the bus.

So...there's a level under which discrimination against fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is acceptable?

As long as the government is not involved, yes. If not, then the government can force us to do whatever it wants us to do, and we might as well tear up the constitution and be done with it.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep.

There is a history of forcing social compliance on a massive scale.

Yeah, it's called "Civilization". It was in all the papers.

Yes. Heil.

Maybe that one got past ya, huh?

.

So let me get this straight. You think that requiring people to actually live up to their business obligations is the same as the regime that sent gays (and others) to the gas chambers?

Really? Really?

No, Joe.

I don't.

As I've said, I'll try to keep things simpler for you in the future.

.

Ah...so the "Heil" comment was intentionally hyperbolic? That's the way to have meaningful debate on the topic...whip out a Hitler reference.

When someone is being obtuse and dishonest, I feel no obligation to be nice.

And the reference was to one specific element of that regime, yes. To claim it was anything more would be hyperbolic.

.

 

[Redfish]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

In that case it was government mandated discrimination, which is what you are supporting now.

How is it discrimination to require a business to NOT discriminate?

When the requirement forces them to choose between their faith and their business.

I wonder if any of the gay/libs in this thread support forcing muslim butchers to sell pork chops and bacon.

Exactly the same argument can be made that the govt must force them to because they are discriminating against pork eaters.

what these fools don't understand is that this is the tip of the iceburg of government thought control and total indoctrination.

 

[Mr. President]

So they can decide what straight couples they let use the facility but gay couples have a right to freely use their property without their permission... Not the America I fought for.

 

[Kondor3]

Is this goddamned thread still on its feet?

These butt-boys and carpet-munchers are getting far too much attention - disproportionate to their numbers and importance to society.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, give it a frigging rest, already.

We're too uppity?

No, you're just getting too much attention in the public eye, and burning-up clock-time and calendar-time better-spent dealing with far more important issues.

 

[martybegan]

Is this goddamned thread still on its feet?

These butt-boys and carpet-munchers are getting far too much attention - disproportionate to their numbers and importance to society.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, give it a frigging rest, already.

We're too uppity?

No, you're just getting too much attention in the public eye, and burning-up clock-time and calendar-time better-spent dealing with far more important issues.

One group deciding they can use government to force people to comply or starve over something as trivial as this IS an important issue.

I have no fight with gay people, except when they decide to ruin others over something as stupid as having their feelings hurt over having to get another baker/photographer/hall.

 

[Mac1958]

...but why don't you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with an anti-gay baker.

There can be only one answer to that.

They don't want to, but they do see an opportunity to punish that person.

.

 

[Redfish]

Is this goddamned thread still on its feet?

These butt-boys and carpet-munchers are getting far too much attention - disproportionate to their numbers and importance to society.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, give it a frigging rest, already.

We're too uppity?

No, you're just getting too much attention in the public eye, and burning-up clock-time and calendar-time better-spent dealing with far more important issues.

One group deciding they can use government to force people to comply or starve over something as trivial as this IS an important issue.

I have no fight with gay people, except when they decide to ruin others over something as stupid as having their feelings hurt over having to get another baker/photographer/hall.

thats it, nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Redfish]

...but why don't you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with an anti-gay baker.

There can be only one answer to that.

They don't want to, but they do see an opportunity to punish that person.

.

yes, punish him for his thoughts and beliefs---------------a terrible precedent.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

 

[martybegan]

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

 

[Seawytch]

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

They don't have to hide...puhleese. It doesn't go against anyone's beliefs to bake a ******* cake.

When I see these anti gay bigots refusing to bake cakes for divorced people or fatties, I'll be more inclined to believe their religiousosity.

 

[Seawytch]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

In that case it was government mandated discrimination, which is what you are supporting now.

How is it discrimination to require a business to NOT discriminate?

When the requirement forces them to choose between their faith and their business.

I wonder if any of the gay/libs in this thread support forcing muslim butchers to sell pork chops and bacon.

Exactly the same argument can be made that the govt must force them to because they are discriminating against pork eaters.

what these fools don't understand is that this is the tip of the iceburg of government thought control and total indoctrination.

Strawman Fishy. Nobody has been asked to provide a product or service they don't provide. Cake #3 is cake #3.

 

[Seawytch]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

In that case it was government mandated discrimination, which is what you are supporting now.

How is it discrimination to require a business to NOT discriminate?

you just don't get it

but why don't you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with an anti-gay baker.

Why did blacks want to sit at the Woolworth's lunch counter? They could get lunch elsewhere. Why does race, color, religion, country of origin and disability status have FEDERAL protection?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

Bigots embrace hatred. I, on the other hand, embrace liberty and equality.

Bigots have used the thin veneer of 'religion' to foment hate. Meanwhile, my understanding of religion is that of egalitarianism, love and peace.

Religion as an aegis for bigotry, is a perversion of religion.

 

[JoeB131]

I wonder if any of the gay/libs in this thread support forcing muslim butchers to sell pork chops and bacon.

Exactly the same argument can be made that the govt must force them to because they are discriminating against pork eaters.

what these fools don't understand is that this is the tip of the iceburg of government thought control and total indoctrination.

Not even a good analogy, because the issue wasn't what they carry, it's who they want to serve.

 

[Skylar]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

Its astonishing how much of the anti-gay rhetoric is just the anti-black rhetoric of the 50s and 60s with a few vocab words changed.

Its like Mad Libs for bigots.