The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[WorldWatcher]

Not if the authority is telling you to do something wrong. Please further read your bible, if you even have one

Whether they sold goods or provided services in the past is irrelevant. The law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not just a sub-section of goods and services.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual attraction isnt' the standard of bathrooms. Gender is.

Rendering your entire analogy moot, troll.

Read the PA laws dude, you can't discriminate based on gender.

The straight male is prohibited from access simply because he "was born that way".

Your sexual orientation is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. You're using irrelevant criteria. The only relevant criteria is gender.

And you know it, troll.

AND YOU CAN'T BE DISCRIMINATED BECAUSE OF GENDER UNDER PA LAWS DUMMY!

And who says that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws? You do, citing yourself.

No State or local government has ever agreed with you. And once again your claims plummet into that vast chasm between your pseudo-legal gibberish and real world outcomes.

You do understand this legal standard, Right

Link: Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

It's was successfully argued supporting same sex marriage.

One group of straight couples ( those unable to procreate) were allowed to marry, but a similarly situated couple (gay) was not

You understand it was your cause that argued this, right?

No- we understand that your butt hurt about homosexuals being allowed to marry has led you on your fantasy quest of pretend legal equivalence.

Americans were denied their right to legally married because they wanted to marry the wrong gender.
States tried to justify their bans based upon many justifications- all found to be not sufficient reason to ban marriage.
The bans were therefore unconstitutional and overturned.

if anyone wants to challenge any other bans on marriage then the state will need to justify such bans- which the courts have already indicated are very different from the bans on same gender marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:

Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.

....

There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

 

[Syriusly]

Your sexual orientation is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. You're using irrelevant criteria. The only relevant criteria is gender.

And you know it, troll.

AND YOU CAN'T BE DISCRIMINATED BECAUSE OF GENDER UNDER PA LAWS DUMMY!

And who says that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws? You do, citing yourself.

No State or local government has ever agreed with you. And once again your claims plummet into that vast chasm between your pseudo-legal gibberish and real world outcomes.

You do understand this legal standard, Right

You do realize that you don't know what you're talking about, right? That your every legal prediction has turned out to be laughably wrong? Like comically inept.

You insisted that gay marriage mandates incest marriage and poly marriage. Yet in 10 years, none of that has happened. You insist that PA laws forbid gendered bathrooms. Yet they never have.

You don't know what you're talking about, Troll. And your 'logical conclusions' are merely demonstrations of how worthless your predictions actually are.

Oh, and just to add to your idiocy, because there has been no complaints filed simply shows tge respect that straights have for society. That is truly lacking in the gay community.

Oh you mean the respect that incestuous straights have for society?

Really?

 

[Syriusly]

Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.

I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.

Sounds like discrimination to me.

Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........

Morality!

That is a stupid analogy. Both men and women are allowed to attend and receive the product. That does not have to include bathroom privileges, as long as each HAS a designated bathroom.

Now your arguing SEPERATE but EQUAL?

PA laws are specific. You can't discriminate based on gender. The heterosexual male is being denied access even though he is similar to the lesbians.

So you think locker room access should be determined by sexual preference?

If that is what you want- go fight that fight.

 

[dblack]

Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:

Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.

....

There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

 

[Seawytch]

Well, not everyone. Just those who enjoy protected class status.

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.

I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.

Sounds like discrimination to me.

Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........

Morality!

That is a stupid analogy. Both men and women are allowed to attend and receive the product. That does not have to include bathroom privileges, as long as each HAS a designated bathroom.

Now your arguing SEPERATE but EQUAL?

PA laws are specific. You can't discriminate based on gender. The heterosexual male is being denied access even though he is similar to the lesbians.

So you think locker room access should be determined by sexual preference?

If that is what you want- go fight that fight.

Oh no...he'll claim that's not REALLY what he wants, he's just "pointing it out".

Bathrooms are not separate-but-equal UCLA

 

[Seawytch]

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:

Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.

....

There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

Gloating over the Civil Rights Act? Sure, okay.

 

[koshergrl]

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:

Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.

....

There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:

Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.

....

There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

What he is saying that even Christians have to obey the law.

Even Nazi's like you.

 

[dblack]

Wow, really? Ok.. lessee.... I can't keep up with the state PC lists, but the federal lists don't cover:

Ugly people.
Dumb people.
Fat people.
Sick people.
Poor people.
Short people.
Smelly people.

....

There's really no end to the irrational biases people can dream up.

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

Well, laws on the books should be enforced. I have no problem with that.

Let me ask you this, koshergrl - would you agree that PA laws and protected classes should be done away with for everyone, including religion? Or are you just complaining because sexual orientation is being added?

 

[koshergrl]

The people decide which groups they want to protect, usually based on a history of particularly egregious discrimination. All of which you already know.

And in the State of Oregon that includes gays and lesbians. True, the Oregon PA law wasn't in effect as the Earth began to cool and form an atmosphere. But it has existed since 2008. Well before the controversy.

The list of folks protected under PA laws isn't that long. If you're confused and confounded by who is covered in your state, consult a lawyer. They'll do the heavy lifting and read those 2 paragraphs or so for you and then explain it. Consider it the cost of doing business.

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

Well, laws on the books should be enforced. I have no problem with that.

Let me ask you this, koshergrl - would you agree that PA laws and protected classes should be done away with for everyone, including religion? Or are you just complaining because sexual orientation is being added?

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class". In other words, you're an idiot. Ask a real question.

 

[dblack]

I'm not confused.

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

The laws establishing protected classes are fundamentally flawed on principle. They undermine the most important goal of civil rights - equal treatment under the law - by establishing the opposite - special treatment under the law.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

Well, laws on the books should be enforced. I have no problem with that.

Let me ask you this, koshergrl - would you agree that PA laws and protected classes should be done away with for everyone, including religion? Or are you just complaining because sexual orientation is being added?

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class". In other words, you're an idiot. Ask a real question.

It's a real question. And I think I know why you won't answer it.

 

[koshergrl]

Really, because you just told us you couldn't keep up with the State PC lists. That's gonna be a tough paragraph or two of reading in your state. You should definitely hire a lawyer to walk you through it.

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

They protect minorities or groups that have a history of being abused or disciminated against. With the criteria of discrimination being decided by the people within the bounds of individual rights. The constitutionality of PA laws has already been tested by the Supreme Court. And found to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees. With intrastate commerce an implict realm of uncontested authority for the States.

Legally, this issue is resolved. The incompatibilities you cite aren't recognized by the courts or the law. While the bases of protection of historically disadvantaged groups are.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

Well, laws on the books should be enforced. I have no problem with that.

Let me ask you this, koshergrl - would you agree that PA laws and protected classes should be done away with for everyone, including religion? Or are you just complaining because sexual orientation is being added?

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class". In other words, you're an idiot. Ask a real question.

It's a real question. And I think I know why you won't answer it.

I don't answer "questions" that make an inaccurate presumption. Religion is not a protected class.

I know you don't understand that, but your lack of education and comprehension of the Consitution isn't my problem. I don't answer questions that seek to establish a premise of stupidity.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class".

The hell it isn't. Learn the damn law.

"In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act"
  Protected class - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Bush92]

Liberal tolerance.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class".

The hell it isn't. Learn the damn law.

"In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act"
  Protected class - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So db is assuming that I want to do away with protected classes because I maintain that it's not an act of illegal discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilege?

That's also idiotic.

 

[dblack]

I guess you're trying to be cute. I think I've been quite clear I don't care who made the list and who didn't.

I've also been clear that I think the Court was wrong. And I've explained why. Rather than address my concerns, you simply keep repeating that "it's the law". What's the point? Are you just gloating?

What he's saying is that they will use the bad law to force you to comply until you find a way to overturn it, and their death grip on it.

Well, laws on the books should be enforced. I have no problem with that.

Let me ask you this, koshergrl - would you agree that PA laws and protected classes should be done away with for everyone, including religion? Or are you just complaining because sexual orientation is being added?

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class". In other words, you're an idiot. Ask a real question.

It's a real question. And I think I know why you won't answer it.

I don't answer "questions" that make an inaccurate presumption. Religion is not a protected class.

It's listed in the protected classes established by PA law. I don't know what you're going on about.

I'm not assuming you want do away with protected classes. I'm assuming you want protected classes only for people you like.

Protected class - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Faun]

Who isn't covered by PA laws? Come on, tell us who it's okay for a business to discriminate against?

Most gyms deny entry into locker / shower rooms for both members of straight married couples while allowing entry to same for gay married couples.

I would point out, a gay female is sexually attracted to the female member of a straight married couple in the same manner as a male.

Sounds like discrimination to me.

Sounds like this discrimination is based on ........

Morality!

That is a stupid analogy. Both men and women are allowed to attend and receive the product. That does not have to include bathroom privileges, as long as each HAS a designated bathroom.

Now your arguing SEPERATE but EQUAL?

PA laws are specific. You can't discriminate based on gender. The heterosexual male is being denied access even though he is similar to the lesbians.

Sexual attraction isnt' the standard of bathrooms. Gender is.

Rendering your entire analogy moot, troll.

Read the PA laws dude, you can't discriminate based on gender.

The straight male is prohibited from access simply because he "was born that way".

Straight males have the same access to bathrooms as gay males.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm sorry, religion isn't a "protected class".

The hell it isn't. Learn the damn law.

"In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act"
  Protected class - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So db is assuming that I want to do away with protected classes because I maintain that it's not an act of illegal discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilege?

That's also idiotic.

Of course you don't want to do away with PA- when they protect you.

You just don't want to have to comply with them yourself.

Thats part of your Christo Nazi bible.