Lesbians whining because doc refused to be baby's doctor

[PaintMyHouse]

Seriously. How are you going to let the homos know not to come into your STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery?

You are going to need some kind of sign.

No back door men allowed

That is correct. Either bake for all or bake for none, your choice.

Says the authoritarian one size fits all leftist. I'm a liberal, to each his own. I want to live in a free country, you want to live in a country where things are free. COmpletely different

What you want is to live as a child would, allowed to do whatever you damn well please even when it negatively impacts others. You want Rights, but not Responsibilities.

Do what I damn well please as long as I don't harm anyone? Damned straight I want that. And I'd do business with the gays, I do actually, all the time.

You realize you just admitted that I'm the liberal and you're not....

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

OMG, you might have to walk across the street to another bakery or see another doctor in an office. No one can live life like that, it's Stalinist Russia.

Once again, you don't know what a liberal is

Oh, but I do, since I am one. You however, are not.

 

[Skylar]

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

At this point I'm not mocking the court, I'm mocking you. You idiot's inference gays today suffer like blacks in the 50s is flat out retarded and insulting to anyone with a brain or who remotely lived through it.

OMG, I had to walk across the street, it's like living in a pogrom....

Feel free. Your claims are refuted by the very courts that will review and rule on the case. You claim race is irrelevant. The courts have cited 4 separate race based cases between Romer V. Evans and Windsor v. Evans. Demonstrating that legally, there is immediate relevance in citing race based cases when describing why discrimination against gays is constitutionally invalid.

Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance won't change a single ruling or legal right.

Not agreeing with the courts is willful ignorance, got it. The courts are of course the absolute arbiters of truth and wisdom. No bias there.

Well, that is if you agree with them...

Which might have some relevance is 'what you agree with' where a standard of any relevance to me, the law or the courts. Alas, you're quite irrelevant on all three counts.

On issues of legal relevance, I'm gonna give the USSC far more weight than I do you, citing yourself. As would any rational person.

 

[kaz]

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

I'm making no comparison. I directly asked you if you made one, and you dodged the issue. To be clearer: what distinction do you see between Lester Maddux refusing to sell fried chicken to blacks and the Florist refusing to sell flowers to gay couples? What is the distinction between the intended effect of both actions?

I answered the question you asked, if you want to ask another that's cool.

Both are idiots

In a free country it is an abomination to freedom for government to use force to compel citizens to do business with each other

Both can walk across the street to a plethora of competitors who don't give a shit, and they should do that.

In both cases if I'm another customer I'll go with them, I don't like bigots. That doesn't contradict that I like living in a free country

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Both can walk across the street to a plethora of competitors who don't give a shit, and they should do that

In a one horse town that doesn't work, hence these laws which allow everyone to get on with their day. It's a perfectly valid compromise since business isn't faith.

 

[kaz]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

 

[koshergrl]

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

I'm making no comparison. I directly asked you if you made one, and you dodged the issue. To be clearer: what distinction do you see between Lester Maddux refusing to sell fried chicken to blacks and the Florist refusing to sell flowers to gay couples? What is the distinction between the intended effect of both actions?

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

The difference matters not, obviously. She broke the law, like it or not.

Nonsense. The interpretation of the law is in error.

You realize that part of being free is being free to fight against tyranny, right? That means civil (and sometimes not so civil) disobedience. We are not obliged to obey bad law.

 

[kaz]

Once again, you don't know what a liberal is

Oh, but I do, since I am one. You however, are not.

Wrong, you are an authoritarian leftist, you just like the word. The last thing a liberal would do is allow government to use force to implement government social policy. You are just pounding home your complete lack of any concept of what liberalism means

 

[koshergrl]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

Because if they had just come in to buy a bouquet, that's a different thing than requiring the florist to provide flowers, knowingly, for a ritual that the florist considers sacrilegious.

 

[kaz]

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

At this point I'm not mocking the court, I'm mocking you. You idiot's inference gays today suffer like blacks in the 50s is flat out retarded and insulting to anyone with a brain or who remotely lived through it.

OMG, I had to walk across the street, it's like living in a pogrom....

Feel free. Your claims are refuted by the very courts that will review and rule on the case. You claim race is irrelevant. The courts have cited 4 separate race based cases between Romer V. Evans and Windsor v. Evans. Demonstrating that legally, there is immediate relevance in citing race based cases when describing why discrimination against gays is constitutionally invalid.

Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance won't change a single ruling or legal right.

Not agreeing with the courts is willful ignorance, got it. The courts are of course the absolute arbiters of truth and wisdom. No bias there.

Well, that is if you agree with them...

Which might have some relevance is 'what you agree with' where a standard of any relevance to me, the law or the courts. Alas, you're quite irrelevant on all three counts.

On issues of legal relevance, I'm gonna give the USSC far more weight than I do you, citing yourself. As would any rational person.

A point you only make ever when you agree with the courts. Well, it's not just me, it's the courts. Be AWED!

I"m not, sorry. but my views and who i cite doesn't change with whether they agree with me or not

 

[koshergrl]

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Mock all you want. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate cases involving race when describing why the rights of gays can not be violated. You can ignore this if you wish.

The courts won't.

At this point I'm not mocking the court, I'm mocking you. You idiot's inference gays today suffer like blacks in the 50s is flat out retarded and insulting to anyone with a brain or who remotely lived through it.

OMG, I had to walk across the street, it's like living in a pogrom....

Feel free. Your claims are refuted by the very courts that will review and rule on the case. You claim race is irrelevant. The courts have cited 4 separate race based cases between Romer V. Evans and Windsor v. Evans. Demonstrating that legally, there is immediate relevance in citing race based cases when describing why discrimination against gays is constitutionally invalid.

Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance won't change a single ruling or legal right.

Not agreeing with the courts is willful ignorance, got it. The courts are of course the absolute arbiters of truth and wisdom. No bias there.

Well, that is if you agree with them...

Yeah, just like "disagreeing with us is "hate speech"'

Disagreeing with the courts is NOT a sign of ignorance, not even close. But that's what they have to say to marginalize anyone who makes an intelligent argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again, you don't know what a liberal is

Oh, but I do, since I am one. You however, are not.

Wrong, you are an authoritarian leftist, you just like the word. The last thing a liberal would do is allow government to use force to implement government social policy. You are just pounding home your complete lack of any concept of what liberalism means

Force? You mean like this?

And this?

That's force. Requiring you to serve one serve all is just good policy, and good business.

 

[kaz]

Both can walk across the street to a plethora of competitors who don't give a shit, and they should do that

In a one horse town that doesn't work, hence these laws which allow everyone to get on with their day. It's a perfectly valid compromise since business isn't faith.

Your go to last ditch effort. Well, if you live in a one horse town, then you'd want oppressive government so it's justified everywhere because of the three people who might be helped.

And here's the 411, girlfriend. In a one horse town, no one is going to do anything about it.

Again, you are an authoritarian leftist, you don't know what a liberal is. And you show that over and over and over

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

Because if they had just come in to buy a bouquet, that's a different thing than requiring the florist to provide flowers, knowingly, for a ritual that the florist considers sacrilegious.

Tell us, if one of the men had bought standard flowers, and mentioned to her that he was going to ask his partner to marry him with them, would she have been right to refuse to sell them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Both can walk across the street to a plethora of competitors who don't give a shit, and they should do that

In a one horse town that doesn't work, hence these laws which allow everyone to get on with their day. It's a perfectly valid compromise since business isn't faith.

Your go to last ditch effort. Well, if you live in a one horse town, then you'd want oppressive government so it's justified everywhere because of the three people who might be helped.

And here's the 411, girlfriend. In a one horse town, no one is going to do anything about it.

Again, you are an authoritarian leftist, you don't know what a liberal is. And you show that over and over and over

I understand what you don't, that we are long past the days of the No ******* or Wetbacks gas station, next gas 100 miles. That doesn't work so we made laws that do. Time to grow up now.

 

[kaz]

Requiring you to serve one serve all is just good policy, and good business.

I cut the rest of your mental masterbation that had nothing to do with government forcing businesses to implement social policy.

Serve one serve all is good business policy. I practice in my business except for Nazis, Devil Worshipers and Canadians. It is not good social policy though unless you are an authoritarian leftist, which is why of course you support it

 

[kaz]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

Because if they had just come in to buy a bouquet, that's a different thing than requiring the florist to provide flowers, knowingly, for a ritual that the florist considers sacrilegious.

Tell us, if one of the men had bought standard flowers, and mentioned to her that he was going to ask his partner to marry him with them, would she have been right to refuse to sell them?

Been right, no, had the right, yes

 

[koshergrl]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

Because if they had just come in to buy a bouquet, that's a different thing than requiring the florist to provide flowers, knowingly, for a ritual that the florist considers sacrilegious.

Tell us, if one of the men had bought standard flowers, and mentioned to her that he was going to ask his partner to marry him with them, would she have been right to refuse to sell them?

No.

But if they asked the florist to specially prepare flowers meant to be used in a ceremony that was considered by the florist to be sacrilegious, yes.

See, asking someone to marry you isn't a sacrament.

Marriage is. And as such, being forced to design/provide/deliver materials to be used in a ceremony that is a vile sacrilege of one of the most holy rituals Christians participate in...is a violation of our right to religious freedom.

 

[kaz]

Both can walk across the street to a plethora of competitors who don't give a shit, and they should do that

In a one horse town that doesn't work, hence these laws which allow everyone to get on with their day. It's a perfectly valid compromise since business isn't faith.

Your go to last ditch effort. Well, if you live in a one horse town, then you'd want oppressive government so it's justified everywhere because of the three people who might be helped.

And here's the 411, girlfriend. In a one horse town, no one is going to do anything about it.

Again, you are an authoritarian leftist, you don't know what a liberal is. And you show that over and over and over

I understand what you don't, that we are long past the days of the No ******* or Wetbacks gas station, next gas 100 miles. That doesn't work so we made laws that do. Time to grow up now.

No one is doing anything about a gas station 100 miles from their nearest competitor law or no, time to grow up now

 

[kaz]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

Because if they had just come in to buy a bouquet, that's a different thing than requiring the florist to provide flowers, knowingly, for a ritual that the florist considers sacrilegious.

Tell us, if one of the men had bought standard flowers, and mentioned to her that he was going to ask his partner to marry him with them, would she have been right to refuse to sell them?

No.

But if they asked the florist to specially prepare flowers meant to be used in a ceremony that was considered by the florist to be sacrilegious, yes.

See, asking someone to marry you isn't a sacrament.

Marriage is. And as such, being forced to design/provide/deliver materials to be used in a ceremony that is a vile sacrilege of one of the most holy rituals Christians participate in...is a violation of our right to religious freedom.

That seems like a completely arbitrary standard. What difference does it make if you are asked to sell work you did do or will do? Why does government have any legitimate right to force anyone to do business with another?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The florist didn't refuse to sell flowers...she refused to cater a homo wedding.

There's a difference.

Why is that different? In either case it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel them to do business

Because if they had just come in to buy a bouquet, that's a different thing than requiring the florist to provide flowers, knowingly, for a ritual that the florist considers sacrilegious.

Tell us, if one of the men had bought standard flowers, and mentioned to her that he was going to ask his partner to marry him with them, would she have been right to refuse to sell them?

No.

But if they asked the florist to specially prepare flowers meant to be used in a ceremony that was considered by the florist to be sacrilegious, yes.

See, asking someone to marry you isn't a sacrament.

Marriage is. And as such, being forced to design/provide/deliver materials to be used in a ceremony that is a vile sacrilege of one of the most holy rituals Christians participate in...is a violation of our right to religious freedom.

What part of getting married at a public courthouse is Holy? And why is the proposal any less of a sin than the wedding?