Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[bripat9643]

The No ******* or Jews gas station doesn't promote American Freedom. The ability to pull in, regardless of who you are, and buy gas however does.

There are no multi-millenia -old religious prohibitions on being Black or Jewish.

There are no communicable diseases associated with being Black or Jewish.

There is no history of dissipated nations losing their martial vigor due - in whole or in part - to being Black or Jewish.

There is no unclean-ness nor unnatural-ness nor filth nor perversion nor aberration associated with being Black or Jewish.

There is no drop in the birth rate associated with being Black or Jewish.

There have never been any laws in this country against being Black or Jewish.

There is no unmanly sissification nor unwomanly butch behavior associated with being Black or Jewish.

There is nothing about innocent children associating with Blacks nor Jews that requires parental intervention or particular watchfulness or anxiety or embarrassment or shame or difficulty in explaining why they should be tolerant of perverts and people whose brains are wired the wrong way.

You are exactly the kind of person the Constitution is designed to protect us from.

How does the Constitution do that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

There are no multi-millenia -old religious prohibitions on being Black or Jewish...

If you find such religious prohibitions on being Black or Jewish, let us know.


If you find such diseases, let us know.


If you find such history, let us know.


If you find such nastiness, let us know.


If you find such a drop, let us know.


If you find such laws, let us know.


If you find such behaviors, let us know.

...There is nothing about innocent children associating with Blacks nor Jews that requires parental intervention or particular watchfulness or anxiety or embarrassment or shame or difficulty in explaining why they should be tolerant of perverts and people whose brains are wired the wrong way.

If you find such difficulties for parents, let us know.

==============================

Or, you could just thank the post.

Those are not things associated with being gay, either.

Idiots have believed many of those things to be true of blacks and Jews. Have they not? It appears that you agree that believing such things about blacks a fed Jews would be dumb as ****.

You believe that those things exist regarding homosexual people. They don't. Your comments are proof that you are an idiot. Dumb as ****.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not just about morality, though that's certainly part of it. Doing obscene cakes may not good be for business with their other customers. I own a graphic design firm, we're clear we don't do sexually explicit content. I doubt that bakery would have done a penis cake for a straight wedding either. They have every right to make their own choices. And plenty of other bakeries would do it, it's stupid to force someone to do what they don't want to do. Free markets provide endless alternatives.

I used to be in that biz and turned down a pro-abortion bumper sticker job for Planned Parenthood on principle. I guess I'm lucky they didn't sue me for sexism.

We do work for Planned Parenthood. We also do lots of work for Democrats. I won't do the sexually explicit but at work I'm about business, not politics.

I did work for PP before, I just wasn't going to do a pro abortion deal. I didn't work for Democrats because they only would do business with a union shop. Dues that go back to their coffers, ya know.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, yes, yes...

Very nice...

All hail, the predictable and inevitable Godwin-isms and melodrama played-out by supporters of the perverse...

We've all heard your (the Homosexual Mafia's) Race-Card and Hitler-ite faux analogies before...

It doesn't excuse your perversity, nor, alternatively, the perversity that you advocate for...

This is a fight for the life and soul of the nation...

You see it as a fight for freedom to ACT perversely...

Your opposition sees it as a fight for freedom from public exposure TO perversity...

There is some merit in both perspectives...

Those opposed to homosexuality have thousands of years of history and the sacred texts and commentaries of several mainstream religions behind them...

I suspect that this fight - rather than being all-but-over - in a legal context - within the United States - is, in fact, just beginning, and may last for the next generation or more...

En garde...

You and I agree on many things [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION]. This is not going to be one of them...

Both of us can live with that, I'm sure.

I never enjoy parting-company with folks, when they are so closely matched on other issue(s), but that comes with the territory, when one holds a wide diversity of Left, Right and Center -leaning viewpoints.

I can respect your opinions on this one, and respect you, for speaking your mind, and your heart, while going toe-to-toe with you, to contest the matter.

I suspect neither of us would have it any other way.

...it is not "perversity" that I would "defend"...

Our first and most egregious area for disagreement, in this context.

...I am defending the right of approximately 10% of our population, consenting adults, to live as everyone else lives. the manner in which people have sex is irrelevant as the "acts" performed by homosexuals are also performed by heterosexuals (not all... and not every act... but we don't question those things in regard to heterosexuals and, ultimately, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is no one's business but theirs)...

There is some considerable merit in this perspective, although it's my perception (right or wrong) that we are dealing with 2% or 3% of the population, rather than 10%.

Frankly, I have enough trouble keeping my own socks pulled up, while walking through life, without worrying about who is sleeping with who, and what plumbing they have or use, while they're doing it.

But I DO believe that Homosexuality represents perversity, and, while I couldn't care less what two 'different' people do behind closed doors, I'm viscerally opposed to legitimizing such behaviors in the public eye.

A mixture of live-and-let-live, with respect to private behaviors, and steel-hard opposition to legitimizing such atypical behaviors, in broad daylight.

..."Perversity" is a value judgment not applied to heterosexual couples unless an act is either non-consensual or all participants ante not adults. The same standard should be applied to gays...

Again, that fundamental and egregious (and, quite probably, irreconcilable) difference between us, regarding this definition. So long as this difference does not substantively impair collaboration on other unrelated issues, it's all good in the hood.

...With respect to marriage equality, no one chooses who they are physically attracted to. a gay man could no more be attracted to a woman than a straight man can be attracted to another man. you don't wake up in the morning and say "oh.. .i think i'll fight off my attraction for men today". nope. how you're hot-wired is how you're hot-wired...

Agreed. It makes no difference to the definition of 'perversity', however, nor the visceral and adverse reaction that vast numbers of 'normal' people have to such perversity.

...that said... marriage has been held, in Loving v Virginia, to be a fundamental right. The law requires that a fundamental right cannot be abridged without a substantial governmental interest. And a gay couple is entitled to the same equal protection under the law that everyone else is entitled to...

Agreed. Given the recent collection of opinions and rulings, continued opposition to this nightmare will require a re-interpretation of law which shifts perception of Homosexuality into the negative spectrum, at-law, in a detriment-to-society sort of mode, before anything can be done to build upon that revised and more negative perception. Whether any of that can be realized depends upon the nature of the next couple of Administrations, beyond the Obama Years.

...There is no more argument for discriminating than there was in defense of segregation...

Disagree.

Segregation as based upon skin color.

Prejudice against Homosexuals is based upon thousands of years of history and social and religious proscriptions.

I perceive it to be the height of cavalier and arrogant thought, to believe that thousands of years of well-deserved proscription can be overturned in a matter of a few years, and in the face of such strong opposition on the part of so large a part of the population.

...We do not make our citizens second class citizens because they offend someone else's sensibilities...

We proscribe those who sexually molest children, even in a (personal, not legally operative) consensual setting.

We proscribe those who engage in sexual bestiality.

We proscribe those who engage in incest.

We proscribe those who engage in necrophilia.

We proscribe those who engage in a great many modes of sexual behaviors which offend the collective sensibilities of society.

Until very recently, we proscribe those who engaged in Homosexual behaviors.

...I'd also suggest that, as a member of a minority that comprises approximately 1.5% of the population of this country (i.e., jews) that it behooves us to defend everyone else's rights...

Generally speaking, I am in the same corner that you are, with this observation.

It is simply that I cannot join you (or your colleagues) in the context of Homosexuality.

I will not stand up for the rights of the perverse, to act perversely, to the extent where I will support the public legitimizing of such perversity.

That is, indeed, a value judgment.

One that was backed-up by Law, until very recently.

Opponents of Homosexual Activism are seeking a return to that recent (and, to a lesser extent, still operative) state of affairs; believing that recent changes are not in the best interests of society at-large, and believing that we weaken ourselves by doing so.

...that is not Godwin and I'm not suggesting anything nazi-esqe in this...

Agreed. Twice agreed. Thrice agreed.

...(i hate when people do that)...

Amen.

And, of course, it gets in the way of whatever intelligent discourse there is to be had, in exploring such an emotionally volatile issue.

...But i am suggesting that things that don't offend others are not in need of protection.... which is why we need to step it up and defend the rights of everyone.

I'm familiar with Pastor Niemoller's admonition myself, and am a big believer in the message conveyed by that admonition, and the warning that it sounds.

Those who (a) oppose the public legitimizing of Homosexuality, and (b) understand Niemoller's mesage, will best serve their Opposition cause by undertaking such opposition reluctantly, as a sad necessity, without resorting to viciousness or denigrating behaviors.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Those opposed to homosexuality have thousands of years of history and the sacred texts and commentaries of several mainstream religions behind them...

I suspect that this fight - rather than being all-but-over - in a legal context - within the United States - is, in fact, just beginning, and may last for the next generation or more...

En garde...

THose same Mainstream Religions also had sacred texts that rationalized misogyny, slavery, torture, and genocide.

And if you point this out to a religious person today, they will use all sorts of excuses like "It was a different time" and "That's the old Testament" (Not that Jesus said to stop doign any of those things in the New Testament.)

Here's why the fight against Homophobia is going to be fairly short now that the tide had turned.

Unlike the racist who could insulate himself and never encounter a person of another race, the homophobe is always going to have that threat of the gay relative giving him the stink-eye at Thanksgiving.

The battle line of legal marriage is collapsing rapidly. Wisconsin just struck down it's law yesterday.

So your last line is "God doesn't want me to bake a cake". Good luck with that.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Signs are such a strange thing... In a service station I go to sometimes, they have a small sign above the urinal in the mens room that says "All bulls with short horns stand close." I didn't know that bulls used the bathroom at the service station.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Under Jim Crow, the law compelled businesses to discriminate, so your conclusion is not supported by the evidence. Jim Crow laws were passed precisely because businesses refused to discriminate against blacks and the racists couldn't allow that. History proves exactly the opposite of what you claim.

That is false. My question is, how many times will we have to prove it is false before you fuckwits will stop saying it?

It's not false, you dumb asshole.

Okay, let's start here:

Tennessee Jim Crow laws:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]

Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

...the RIGHT to do it, not the requirement.

And affirmed here:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]

All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

...again, confirming that it was the business's choice to separate black and white, not the requirement.

- See more at: Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

 

[Kondor3]

You are exactly the kind of person the Constitution is designed to protect us from.

On the contrary...

The Constitution is designed to protect The Nation and its People from tyranny...

Forcing the population to legitimize Sexual Perversity against its will is a form of tyranny...

The Constitution is also designed to protect The Nation and its People from the imposition of restrictions on Sexual Perversity without due process of Law...

Opponents of the Legitimizing of Homosexuality seek to use the Law, to reverse the recent and most unfortunate trend toward such legitimizing...

The Constitution does not prohibit Opposition working within The Law...

Not the last time I looked anyway...

Liberals have not yet been able to wreak that degree of havoc upon our Republic...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Signs are such a strange thing... In a service station I go to sometimes, they have a small sign above the urinal in the mens room that says "All bulls with short horns stand close." I didn't know that bulls used the bathroom at the service station.

I was at a bird dog club once where the mens' and ladies' rooms are labeled 'Pointers' and 'Setters'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are exactly the kind of person the Constitution is designed to protect us from.

On the contrary...

The Constitution is designed to protect The Nation and its People from tyranny...

Forcing the population to legitimize Sexual Perversity against its will is a form of tyranny...

The Constitution is also designed to protect The Nation and its People from the imposition of restrictions on Sexual Perversity without due process of Law...

Opponents of the Legitimizing of Homosexuality seek to use the Law, to reverse the recent and most unfortunate trend toward such legitimizing...

The Constitution does not prohibit Opposition working within The Law...

Not the last time I looked anyway...

Liberals have not yet been able to wreak that degree of havoc upon our Republic...

The People also get to define what is 'sexual perversity'. Not you. Are there enough of 'you' to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the rights that Americans have under the Constitution?

No, there are not. Democracy wins, and we get treated to the spectacle of you crying about it ad nauseum.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are exactly the kind of person the Constitution is designed to protect us from.

On the contrary...

The Constitution is designed to protect The Nation and its People from tyranny...

Forcing the population to legitimize Sexual Perversity against its will is a form of tyranny...

The Constitution is also designed to protect The Nation and its People from the imposition of restrictions on Sexual Perversity without due process of Law...

Opponents of the Legitimizing of Homosexuality seek to use the Law, to reverse the recent and most unfortunate trend toward such legitimizing...

The Constitution does not prohibit Opposition working within The Law...

Not the last time I looked anyway...

Liberals have not yet been able to wreak that degree of havoc upon our Republic...

The People also get to define what is 'sexual perversity'. Not you. Are there enough of 'you' to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the rights that Americans have under the Constitution?

No, there are not. Democracy wins, and we get treated to the spectacle of you crying about it ad nauseum.

The crying ain't so bad. It will eventually turn into a whimper. It's that incessant foot stomping and hand wringing that irks me. Someone's gonna knock over a beer or something.

 

[Kondor3]

Those are not things associated with being gay, either...

Others believe differently.

...Idiots have believed many of those things to be true of blacks and Jews. Have they not? It appears that you agree that believing such things about blacks a fed Jews would be dumb as ****...

People who believed such things had very little basis for such beliefs, including a lack of historical examples.

...You believe that those things exist regarding homosexual people...

Yes, I do, at least in large-part, and with the caveat that there are shades and degrees of accuracy to be had with any range of historical examples and modern interpretation as to whether such example were even actually and genuinely eligible to be labeled as examples. A great many others hold such views, as well, so, I am content that I am in good company. Both camps have their share of tunnel-vision and bigoted and ideologue types, and both camps have their share of more thoughtful and sincere types. I do not confuse differences of opinion with a lack of intelligence or worthiness.

... They don't...

That is your personal opinion; no more nor less valid than that of your opponents.

...Your comments are proof that you are an idiot. Dumb as ****...

...I do not confuse differences of opinion with a lack of intelligence or worthiness...

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Those are not things associated with being gay, either...

Others believe differently.

...Idiots have believed many of those things to be true of blacks and Jews. Have they not? It appears that you agree that believing such things about blacks a fed Jews would be dumb as ****...

People who believed such things had very little basis for such beliefs, including a lack of historical examples.


Yes, I do, at least in large-part, and with the caveat that there are shades and degrees of accuracy to be had with any range of historical examples and modern interpretation as to whether such example were even actually and genuinely eligible to be labeled as examples. A great many others hold such views, as well, so, I am content that I am in good company. Both camps have their share of tunnel-vision and bigoted and ideologue types, and both camps have their share of more thoughtful and sincere types. I do not confuse differences of opinion with a lack of intelligence or worthiness.


That is your personal opinion; no more nor less valid than that of your opponents.

...Your comments are proof that you are an idiot. Dumb as ****...

...I do not confuse differences of opinion with a lack of intelligence or worthiness...

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

You know what....you are right on that last point. I must apologize.

You are obviously not an idiot. But...you have some kind of flaw that permits you to buy into such nonsense in spite of your intelligence. Not sure what that is. Wish I knew.

 

[Freewill]

You are exactly the kind of person the Constitution is designed to protect us from.

On the contrary...

The Constitution is designed to protect The Nation and its People from tyranny...

Forcing the population to legitimize Sexual Perversity against its will is a form of tyranny...

The Constitution is also designed to protect The Nation and its People from the imposition of restrictions on Sexual Perversity without due process of Law...

Opponents of the Legitimizing of Homosexuality seek to use the Law, to reverse the recent and most unfortunate trend toward such legitimizing...

The Constitution does not prohibit Opposition working within The Law...

Not the last time I looked anyway...

Liberals have not yet been able to wreak that degree of havoc upon our Republic...

The People also get to define what is 'sexual perversity'. Not you. Are there enough of 'you' to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the rights that Americans have under the Constitution?

No, there are not. Democracy wins, and we get treated to the spectacle of you crying about it ad nauseum.

Well then, in almost all, if not all, when the people got a chance to vote on the issue of gay marriage it was turned down. Even in the state of California. That does not mean that people hate gays. That is not a restriction on rights that is what the people decided. So you can't have a judge decide an issue and tell us that it is the choice of the people. Well I guess you can it just isn't factual.

What rights do you think are in the constitution that gays are being denied? Marriage by the way isn't in the constitution so the individual states should have a say but judges make sure they do not.

 

[Kondor3]

You are exactly the kind of person the Constitution is designed to protect us from.

On the contrary...

The Constitution is designed to protect The Nation and its People from tyranny...

Forcing the population to legitimize Sexual Perversity against its will is a form of tyranny...

The Constitution is also designed to protect The Nation and its People from the imposition of restrictions on Sexual Perversity without due process of Law...

Opponents of the Legitimizing of Homosexuality seek to use the Law, to reverse the recent and most unfortunate trend toward such legitimizing...

The Constitution does not prohibit Opposition working within The Law...

Not the last time I looked anyway...

Liberals have not yet been able to wreak that degree of havoc upon our Republic...

The People also get to define what is 'sexual perversity'. Not you...

Historically, the Laws of the United States have supported the Conservative perspective on this.

It is only in recent months and years, that we have begun to drift away from that wise and more wholesome perspective.

I agree that The People get to define 'perversity', in a legal context.

They have done so... long-since... long ago.

It is Activist Judges that have overridden The People in this regard.

And THAT is what all the fuss is about, isn't it?

Overriding the Will of he People.

...Are there enough of 'you' to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the rights that Americans have under the Constitution?

I don't know, to be very honest, and that is a matter of some genuine concern, to the Opposition. Far too many Sheeple, and few too few Stalwarts, willing to take a stand.

Then again, it would not require an Amendment; there is a much simpler approach.

Namely, high-level Conservative -caliber rulings, which reinstate Homosexuality as an undesirable mode of behavior, dangerous and detrimental to the Republic and its People.

But even that will require courage, and persistence, over a generation or two, and I really and truly question whether America still has the balls to undertake such a campaign.

...No, there are not...

You may be right.

I suspect we will learn more about whether this is the case, after Obama and his Liberal Administration have cleared off the public stage.

...Democracy wins...

Perhaps.

That, or Apathy wins.

I don't know which that would be, if things end-up remaining as they are now.

...and we get treated to the spectacle of you crying about it ad nauseum.

Enjoy the show.

 

[Bfgrn]

Those are not things associated with being gay, either...

Others believe differently.

...Idiots have believed many of those things to be true of blacks and Jews. Have they not? It appears that you agree that believing such things about blacks a fed Jews would be dumb as ****...

People who believed such things had very little basis for such beliefs, including a lack of historical examples.


Yes, I do, at least in large-part, and with the caveat that there are shades and degrees of accuracy to be had with any range of historical examples and modern interpretation as to whether such example were even actually and genuinely eligible to be labeled as examples. A great many others hold such views, as well, so, I am content that I am in good company. Both camps have their share of tunnel-vision and bigoted and ideologue types, and both camps have their share of more thoughtful and sincere types. I do not confuse differences of opinion with a lack of intelligence or worthiness.


That is your personal opinion; no more nor less valid than that of your opponents.

...Your comments are proof that you are an idiot. Dumb as ****...

...I do not confuse differences of opinion with a lack of intelligence or worthiness...

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Jews as parasites, liars, dirty, crafty, sly, wily, clever, without any true culture, a sponger, a middleman, a maggot, eternal blood suckers, repulsive, unscrupulous, monsters, foreign, menace, bloodthirsty, avaricious, the destroyer of Aryan humanity, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity...

YOU are the menace to a civil society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On the contrary...

The Constitution is designed to protect The Nation and its People from tyranny...

Forcing the population to legitimize Sexual Perversity against its will is a form of tyranny...

The Constitution is also designed to protect The Nation and its People from the imposition of restrictions on Sexual Perversity without due process of Law...

Opponents of the Legitimizing of Homosexuality seek to use the Law, to reverse the recent and most unfortunate trend toward such legitimizing...

The Constitution does not prohibit Opposition working within The Law...

Not the last time I looked anyway...

Liberals have not yet been able to wreak that degree of havoc upon our Republic...

The People also get to define what is 'sexual perversity'. Not you. Are there enough of 'you' to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the rights that Americans have under the Constitution?

No, there are not. Democracy wins, and we get treated to the spectacle of you crying about it ad nauseum.

Well then, in almost all, if not all, when the people got a chance to vote on the issue of gay marriage it was turned down. Even in the state of California. That does not mean that people hate gays. That is not a restriction on rights that is what the people decided. So you can't have a judge decide an issue and tell us that it is the choice of the people. Well I guess you can it just isn't factual.

What rights do you think are in the constitution that gays are being denied? Marriage by the way isn't in the constitution so the individual states should have a say but judges make sure they do not.

There were what, 30-some states with laws against interracial marriage when that was found unconstitutional?

Ultimately it appears that you would have to amend the Constitution to outlaw same sex marriage,

and that's never going to happen.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

here is how that works

the right to refuse is limited to leftist causes

 

[Mac1958]

.

Once one of the parties is compared to Hitler and/or the Nazis, it's a safe bet that the conversation will pretty much be in the shitter for a while.



.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Government run amok? How long before "Re-education Camps" open up for not conforming?


Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

excuse me but that is a defacto "re education camp"