When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[martybegan]

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

The states have in fact determined that discrimination is harmful, not only to individuals or groups of individuals, but also to business.

That's running to authority, not explaining why it should be so. Its basically saying "well, just because!"

 

[ChrisL]

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?

It's not about "feelings." It's about discrimination. We don't allow that in today's world here in America. You seem confused.

 

[ChrisL]

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

The states have in fact determined that discrimination is harmful, not only to individuals or groups of individuals, but also to business.

That's running to authority, not explaining why it should be so. Its basically saying "well, just because!"

I've posted you many links in this thread explaining why. If you didn't read them, that's your own problem.

 

[martybegan]

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?

It's not about "feelings." It's about discrimination. We don't allow that in today's world here in America. You seem confused.

When that couple was told that the baker did not want to bake the cake, what was the end result. Discrimination is not an end result. Did they not get married? Could they not find another baker to provide a cake?

What was the actual result of all this?

 

[martybegan]

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

The states have in fact determined that discrimination is harmful, not only to individuals or groups of individuals, but also to business.

That's running to authority, not explaining why it should be so. Its basically saying "well, just because!"

I've posted you many links in this thread explaining why. If you didn't read them, that's your own problem.

It more people just explaining "because because because", not a concrete end result or reason.

 

[ChrisL]

For ONE thing, if you allow one group to discriminate, then there would be ALL kinds of problems arising from that. It inhibits business in particular states and effects the states' bottom lines. It makes business difficult and promotes segregation.

You need to get your head out of the sand and get out of your 1950s fantasy world.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?

It's not about "feelings." It's about discrimination. We don't allow that in today's world here in America. You seem confused.

When that couple was told that the baker did not want to bake the cake, what was the end result. Discrimination is not an end result. Did they not get married? Could they not find another baker to provide a cake?

What was the actual result of all this?

That is besides the point. The point is that allowing people to discriminate when it comes to business opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms, makes business difficult and promotes segregation.

 

[martybegan]

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

I have a feeling the Trump #'s are higher, its just that people don't want to admit it in polling.

Hell, this may be a moot issue because Hillary is doing her 4th quarter swoon, and Trump almost seems to want to GIVE the nomination away at this point.

A former head of one Trump supporting PAC offered an interesting insight; Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to say he *could* have been president if he'd wanted to.

I have a sinking feeling he started this as a lark, or for some reality TV show, but he tapped into something deeper that is currently running in american politics. I think Trump is surprised as the rest of us. The same can be said for Bernie. Any candidate other than Hillary, with all of her baggage, would have been thwomping him consistently. Its the only thing that can explain why millennials, even women millennials are rallying behind someone old enough to be their grandfather.

 

[ChrisL]

If everyone was bright, articulate, intelligent and thoughtful, we would not NEED regulations and rules, but of course we all know that is NOT the case. Lol.

 

[martybegan]

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?

It's not about "feelings." It's about discrimination. We don't allow that in today's world here in America. You seem confused.

When that couple was told that the baker did not want to bake the cake, what was the end result. Discrimination is not an end result. Did they not get married? Could they not find another baker to provide a cake?

What was the actual result of all this?

That is besides the point. The point is that allowing people to discriminate when it comes to business opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms, makes business difficult and promotes segregation.

No, it isn't besides the point. If you are going to ruin someone, or force them to act against their moral judgement, "Just because" is not good enough. Government action on the scale being done cannot be done just to set an example because some people think it is the "right thing to do".

That is dangerous thinking regardless of the "good" one is trying to do.

 

[ChrisL]

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?

It's not about "feelings." It's about discrimination. We don't allow that in today's world here in America. You seem confused.

When that couple was told that the baker did not want to bake the cake, what was the end result. Discrimination is not an end result. Did they not get married? Could they not find another baker to provide a cake?

What was the actual result of all this?

That is besides the point. The point is that allowing people to discriminate when it comes to business opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms, makes business difficult and promotes segregation.

No, it isn't besides the point. If you are going to ruin someone, or force them to act against their moral judgement, "Just because" is not good enough. Government action on the scale being done cannot be done just to set an example because some people think it is the "right thing to do".

That is dangerous thinking regardless of the "good" one is trying to do.

Your morals have no place when running a business. Sorry.

 

[ChrisL]

If your "morals" dictate that you be an asshole, that's fine. Just don't open a business. Keep your crappy morals to yourself. We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals." Lol.

 

[martybegan]

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?

It's not about "feelings." It's about discrimination. We don't allow that in today's world here in America. You seem confused.

When that couple was told that the baker did not want to bake the cake, what was the end result. Discrimination is not an end result. Did they not get married? Could they not find another baker to provide a cake?

What was the actual result of all this?

That is besides the point. The point is that allowing people to discriminate when it comes to business opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms, makes business difficult and promotes segregation.

No, it isn't besides the point. If you are going to ruin someone, or force them to act against their moral judgement, "Just because" is not good enough. Government action on the scale being done cannot be done just to set an example because some people think it is the "right thing to do".

That is dangerous thinking regardless of the "good" one is trying to do.

Your morals have no place when running a business. Sorry.

You have not given a reason for that beyond "cause that's what I think is right."

 

[Skylar]

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

I have a feeling the Trump #'s are higher, its just that people don't want to admit it in polling.

Hell, this may be a moot issue because Hillary is doing her 4th quarter swoon, and Trump almost seems to want to GIVE the nomination away at this point.

A former head of one Trump supporting PAC offered an interesting insight; Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to say he *could* have been president if he'd wanted to.

I have a sinking feeling he started this as a lark, or for some reality TV show, but he tapped into something deeper that is currently running in american politics. I think Trump is surprised as the rest of us. The same can be said for Bernie. Any candidate other than Hillary, with all of her baggage, would have been thwomping him consistently. Its the only thing that can explain why millennials, even women millennials are rallying behind someone old enough to be their grandfather.

I suspect he started as a protest candidate to make a point. And then started to drink his own Kool-aid.

All pejoratives aside, the man is a clinical narcissist. Huge, adoring crowds are better than sex wrapped heroin for a clinical narcissist. Its understandable why he'd want more.

 

[martybegan]

If your "morals" dictate that you be an asshole, that's fine. Just don't open a business. Keep your crappy morals to yourself. We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals." Lol.

So because they won't serve a small % of the population in one specific transaction, remember they said they did not deny point of sale services to gay people, they should not be involved in that business at all.

So its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you piss off the wrong people, and in that case we are going to smash you!"

That would make the Declaration if Independence and entirely different document.

 

[ChrisL]

If your "morals" dictate that you be an asshole, that's fine. Just don't open a business. Keep your crappy morals to yourself. We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals." Lol.

So because they won't serve a small % of the population in one specific transaction, remember they said they did not deny point of sale services to gay people, they should not be involved in that business at all.

So its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you piss off the wrong people, and in that case we are going to smash you!"

That would make the Declaration if Independence and entirely different document.

You are confused. I suspect you were brought up in the 1950s.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

I have a feeling the Trump #'s are higher, its just that people don't want to admit it in polling.

Hell, this may be a moot issue because Hillary is doing her 4th quarter swoon, and Trump almost seems to want to GIVE the nomination away at this point.

A former head of one Trump supporting PAC offered an interesting insight; Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to say he *could* have been president if he'd wanted to.

I have a sinking feeling he started this as a lark, or for some reality TV show, but he tapped into something deeper that is currently running in american politics. I think Trump is surprised as the rest of us. The same can be said for Bernie. Any candidate other than Hillary, with all of her baggage, would have been thwomping him consistently. Its the only thing that can explain why millennials, even women millennials are rallying behind someone old enough to be their grandfather.

I suspect he started as a protest candidate to make a point. And then started to drink his own Kool-aid.

All pejoratives aside, the man is a clinical narcissist. Huge, adoring crowds are better than sex wrapped heroin for a clinical narcissist. Its understandable why he'd want more.

That's a pretty accurate assessment. But of course we get the pile on, and even If I can't stand him, I know 1/2 the crap being attributed to him is exaggeration and outright bullshit.

Also, after 50 or so pages, I declare:

 

[martybegan]

If your "morals" dictate that you be an asshole, that's fine. Just don't open a business. Keep your crappy morals to yourself. We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals." Lol.

So because they won't serve a small % of the population in one specific transaction, remember they said they did not deny point of sale services to gay people, they should not be involved in that business at all.

So its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you piss off the wrong people, and in that case we are going to smash you!"

That would make the Declaration if Independence and entirely different document.

You are confused. I suspect you were brought up in the 1950s.

Actually grade school in the 80's, high school and college in the 90's.

And no confusion on my part. You just won't provide an answer besides "discrimination bad, must be punished, unga bunga"

 

[ChrisL]

If your "morals" dictate that you be an asshole, that's fine. Just don't open a business. Keep your crappy morals to yourself. We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals." Lol.

So because they won't serve a small % of the population in one specific transaction, remember they said they did not deny point of sale services to gay people, they should not be involved in that business at all.

So its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you piss off the wrong people, and in that case we are going to smash you!"

That would make the Declaration if Independence and entirely different document.

You are confused. I suspect you were brought up in the 1950s.

Actually grade school in the 80's, high school and college in the 90's.

And no confusion on my part. You just won't provide an answer besides "discrimination bad, must be punished, unga bunga"

Join us here in the current century please. When it comes to business matters, you are not allowed to discriminate against people for a multitude of darn good reasons. If you cannot deal with that, then do not open a public accommodation business, and please stop whining. It's getting really old, and you just keep repeating the same old nonsense.

 

[ChrisL]

If your "morals" dictate that you be an asshole, that's fine. Just don't open a business. Keep your crappy morals to yourself. We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals." Lol.

So because they won't serve a small % of the population in one specific transaction, remember they said they did not deny point of sale services to gay people, they should not be involved in that business at all.

So its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you piss off the wrong people, and in that case we are going to smash you!"

That would make the Declaration if Independence and entirely different document.

You are confused. I suspect you were brought up in the 1950s.

Actually grade school in the 80's, high school and college in the 90's.

And no confusion on my part. You just won't provide an answer besides "discrimination bad, must be punished, unga bunga"

I did provide an answer, multiple times now. You just don't like it and want to stick to "it's not fair that I have to serve the gays, the blacks, or others things that go against my "religious" beliefs.

This is just one of many reasons to rebuke religion. It's a terrible regressive thing.