When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[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 We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals."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"

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.

Still not explaining why. Just "because because because".

 

[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 We care about "equality" in today's world, not your outdated and obsolete "morals."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.

Still not explaining why. Just "because because because".

Because it hinders business transactions, promotes segregation, and one person's "religious" beliefs when it comes to doing business does not trump another person's civil liberties.

 

[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"

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.

Nope. You haven't said why the baker should be punished beyond "all discrimination bad". I even spelled it out for you and you didn't respond with an actual answer.

If you actually read the complaint in question, the main findings were entirely related to "mental anguish" caused by the denial, so even the OFFICIAL reasons for the punishment boils down to hurt feelings.

To me, its no harm, no foul.

And the only regression here is on the progressive side with their bake or die mantra.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Still not explaining why. Just "because because because".

Because it hinders business transactions, promotes segregation, and one person's "religious" beliefs when it comes to doing business does not trump another person's civil liberties.

No, it doesn't One baker or one in 100 or 1000 bakers does not hinder business, they can find another baker. It does not promote segregation, I don't see gay lunch counters coming out of this, and there is no right to buy the cake you want for your wedding. There is a right, however to free exercise of religion, one you routinely ignore.

You do realize that by forcing the bakers to bake, you ARE violating their civil liberties? But you don't like them personally so, "fuck them". right?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Still not explaining why. Just "because because because".

Because it hinders business transactions, promotes segregation, and one person's "religious" beliefs when it comes to doing business does not trump another person's civil liberties.

No, it doesn't One baker or one in 100 or 1000 bakers does not hinder business, they can find another baker. It does not promote segregation, I don't see gay lunch counters coming out of this, and there is no right to buy the cake you want for your wedding. There is a right, however to free exercise of religion, one you routinely ignore.

You do realize that by forcing the bakers to bake, you ARE violating their civil liberties? But you don't like them personally so, "fuck them". right?

That's not the way it works. No business is allowed to discriminate against a group of people for any reason. Nobody is violating their liberties. They are still entitled to follow their religious beliefs. They just cannot incorporate them into their business dealings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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)

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the rights asserted and protected in the Bill of Rights do not apply when one is engaged in commerce? (hint: It doesn't say that, anywhere.)

Religion isn't just a costume to put on on Sundays to go to church, and tben put aside for tbe rest of the week. My moral principles are to be observed in how I conduct all parts of my life, including my profession.

 

[ChrisL]

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)

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the rights asserted and protected in the Bill of Rights do not apply when one is engaged in commerce? (hint: It doesn't say that, anywhere.)

Religion isn't just a costume to put on on Sundays to go to church, and tben put aside for tbe rest of the week. My moral principles are to be observed in how I conduct all parts of my life, including my profession.

I can't even talk to you anymore. You make me sick.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Nonsense. My religious beliefs have an important place in all parts of my life. The First Amendment fully backs me, and fully refutes you, on this point.

The law is the law, after all; and there is no higher law in this nation than the Constitution, of which the First Amendment is part.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, you are nothing but disgusting and rotten people in my eyes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Your lack of morals most certainly has no place in how someone else's business is to be conducted. Not sorry.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Spoken like a true bigot.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When people stop caring about whether people are gay or not.

 

[dblack]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

Ahh.. right you are. That was ProgressivePatriot 's post. The quoting function is can be a pain on my phone.

In any case, it was a post you flagged with "agree" so it's hard see why you'd take offense or assume I had some ulterior motive.

 

[ChrisL]

Although I'm not a religious person, I think Jesus (if he was real) was a very intelligent man WAAAAY beyond his times, and I'm sure he would be embarrassed to have these so-called "religious" people mention his name and claiming to be his followers. He didn't have a hateful bone in his body unlike many of you.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

Ahh.. right you are. That was ProgressivePatriot 's post. The quoting function is can be a pain on my phone.

In any case, it was a post you flagged with "agree" so it's hard see why you'd take offense or assume I had some ulterior motive.

You don't attribute posts to a person dishonestly. How on earth do you do that?

 

[dblack]

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

I'm not arguing about gay rights. I'm arguing about bad laws. I happen to be a supporter of gays, and gay rights. I support gay marriage, for example. I think gays can make fine parents and shouldn't be blocked from doing so. You can look, but you won't find, any anti-gay agenda in my posts. This is the mainstream libertarian position. It's the official party platform.

You're pegging me with a stereotype that you apply to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. You know, like bigots do.

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

I'm not arguing about gay rights. I'm arguing about bad laws. I happen to be a supporter of gays, and gay rights. I support gay marriage, for example. I think gays can make fine parents and shouldn't be blocked from doing so. You can look, but you won't find, any anti-gay agenda in my posts. This is the mainstream libertarian position. It's the official party platform.

You're pegging me with a stereotype that you apply to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. You know, like bigots do.

It's a perfectly fine law that protects people against discrimination. Like I said, if there weren't ignorant asses in the world, we wouldn't need such laws, but obviously that is NOT reality.

 

[dblack]

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.
Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

Ahh.. right you are. That was ProgressivePatriot 's post. The quoting function is can be a pain on my phone.

In any case, it was a post you flagged with "agree" so it's hard see why you'd take offense or assume I had some ulterior motive.

You don't attribute posts to a person dishonestly. How on earth do you do that?

What do you mean? How can a quote be accidentally attributed to the wrong person? Well, on my phone, any post you happen to click on (if you click on the wrong place at the wrong time) will be added to your response. When this happens, I try to delete out the quotes I don't want. When they're deeply nested, this can get confusing.

Anyway, you agreed with the post, so why in the world does it have you so bent out of shape???

 

[ChrisL]

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

Ahh.. right you are. That was ProgressivePatriot 's post. The quoting function is can be a pain on my phone.

In any case, it was a post you flagged with "agree" so it's hard see why you'd take offense or assume I had some ulterior motive.

You don't attribute posts to a person dishonestly. How on earth do you do that?

What do you mean? How can a quote be accidentally attributed to the wrong person? Well, on my phone, any post you happen to click on (if you click on the wrong place at the wrong time) will be added to your response. When this happens, I try to delete out the quotes I don't want. When they're deeply nested, this can get confusing.

Anyway, you agreed with the post, so why in the world does it have you so bent out of shape???

Because I don't like posts that I didn't write being attributed to me! If it was an accident, then whatever, but you should try to pay more attention to what you're doing. TIA.

 

[dblack]

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

I'm not arguing about gay rights. I'm arguing about bad laws. I happen to be a supporter of gays, and gay rights. I support gay marriage, for example. I think gays can make fine parents and shouldn't be blocked from doing so. You can look, but you won't find, any anti-gay agenda in my posts. This is the mainstream libertarian position. It's the official party platform.

You're pegging me with a stereotype that you apply to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. You know, like bigots do.

It's a perfectly fine law that protects people against discrimination. Like I said, if there weren't ignorant asses in the world, we wouldn't need such laws, but obviously that is NOT reality.

And what about when the law decides you're the ignorant ass? It doesn't sound like you're the type of person who thinks much about the principles or general precedents established by laws, but I do. And the idea that the law can be used to tell us who we associate with, who we work with, who we collaborate with, etc, etc.. set's a really bad precedent.

Essentially it takes away our right to shun people we disapprove of. And, while that might sometimes be used in ways you don't like, it's a very important moderating force in society. It's essentially the core of political correctness, something I actually support. It's how we keep each other inline without resorting to laws for every single thing we do.