Religious freedom wins again.

[Taz]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Why not?

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

 

[badger2]

#81: Yes, religion and politics is just the pivot of taboo of what not to talk about that is taught in barber school.

 

[diver52]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Why not?

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

So you are saying that if it my business I am not allowed to have personal feelings?

 

[dblack]

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

People don't work that way.

 

[Taz]

No,you don't.

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Why not?

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

So you are saying that if it my business I am not allowed to have personal feelings?

So if you open a restaurant you’re going to have a sign that says “no fags allowed”?

 

[Taz]

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

People don't work that way.

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

 

[diver52]

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Why not?

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

So you are saying that if it my business I am not allowed to have personal feelings?

So if you open a restaurant you’re going to have a sign that says “no fags allowed”?

If that is what I want. Yes. Then you have the option of deciding whether you want to enter a restaurant that doesn't allow fags. You get to make that decision for yourself rather than the government making it for you. Do you have a problem with making your own decisions?

 

[diver52]

What both the right and the left can't seem to wrap their minds around is that a government that has the power to ban something has the power to require it. If it can ban businesses from denying service, it can require those services be denied. If it can ban abortion, it can require abortion. Once you place that power in the hands of government you hand over your own right to decide for yourself. Freedom is messy and it isn't fair. If you want clean and fair, find yourself a nice dictatorship.

 

[dblack]

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

People don't work that way.

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

Me? No way. I think that kind of bigotry is socially, morally and personally unacceptable. But it shouldn't be illegal. That's worse than the bigotry.

 

[Taz]

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

People don't work that way.

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

Me? No way. I think that kind of bigotry is socially, morally and personally unacceptable. But it shouldn't be illegal. That's worse than the bigotry.

And sometimes you need a law to get rid of such bigotry because your country is FULL of fucking bigots... with guns.

 

[dblack]

If it was something you disagreed with, being forced to express that would be a violation of your right to free speech.

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

People don't work that way.

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

Me? No way. I think that kind of bigotry is socially, morally and personally unacceptable. But it shouldn't be illegal. That's worse than the bigotry.

And sometimes you need a law to get rid of such bigotry because your country is FULL of fucking bigots... with guns.

There are already laws against gun violence. If they break any of those, I'm right there with you, we should bust them. If they're just being choosy about how they associate with, we don't "need" a law to force them to change their minds. We need to get over this assumption that every single social problem can be solved with a law.

 

[Taz]

It's a business, you make what people order, no personal feelings involved.

People don't work that way.

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

Me? No way. I think that kind of bigotry is socially, morally and personally unacceptable. But it shouldn't be illegal. That's worse than the bigotry.

And sometimes you need a law to get rid of such bigotry because your country is FULL of fucking bigots... with guns.

There are already laws against gun violence. If they break any of those, I'm right there with you, we should bust them. If they're just being choosy about how they associate with, we don't "need" a law to force them to change their minds. We need to get over this assumption that every single social problem can be solved with a law.

Laws helped blacks... in America. Sometimes all the bigots need to be slapped down.

 

[dblack]

People don't work that way.

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

Me? No way. I think that kind of bigotry is socially, morally and personally unacceptable. But it shouldn't be illegal. That's worse than the bigotry.

And sometimes you need a law to get rid of such bigotry because your country is FULL of fucking bigots... with guns.

There are already laws against gun violence. If they break any of those, I'm right there with you, we should bust them. If they're just being choosy about how they associate with, we don't "need" a law to force them to change their minds. We need to get over this assumption that every single social problem can be solved with a law.

Laws helped blacks... in America. Sometimes all the bigots need to be slapped down.

It's an abuse of the law though. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of social problems. No need to get the police involved. We're essentially pursing "thought crime" as way of dealing with racism and bigotry. We can't control people like that. And if we try anyway, we just end up with intrusive government and more backlash. The attitude that we can, and should, use government to mold society, to tell people how to live, is how we got Trump. People don't like to be meddled with:

 

[Taz]

So you’re going to pick who you allow in? No coons, no fags, who else?

Me? No way. I think that kind of bigotry is socially, morally and personally unacceptable. But it shouldn't be illegal. That's worse than the bigotry.

And sometimes you need a law to get rid of such bigotry because your country is FULL of fucking bigots... with guns.

There are already laws against gun violence. If they break any of those, I'm right there with you, we should bust them. If they're just being choosy about how they associate with, we don't "need" a law to force them to change their minds. We need to get over this assumption that every single social problem can be solved with a law.

Laws helped blacks... in America. Sometimes all the bigots need to be slapped down.

It's an abuse of the law though. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of social problems. No need to get the police involved. We're essentially pursing "thought crime" as way of dealing with racism and bigotry. We can't control people like that. And if we try anyway, we just end up with intrusive government and more backlash. The attitude that we can, and should, use government to mold society, to tell people how to live, is how we got Trump. People don't like to be meddled with:

Last we dealt with it outside of laws we called it the Civil War.