Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

[Nosmo King]

So what are they, slaves beholden to your orders?

Leftism is totalitarian by nature - as this again demonstrates.

He says DJs, photographers and caterers don't participate in weddings. They don't? That's news to me.

Are these vendors officiating at the ceremony? Are they to bring a gift to the reception? Do these vendors give away the bride?

As it turns out, these vendors are merely plying their trade. There is no requirement for wedding vendors to approve of the weddings they serve. The vendors do not place a merchantile imperamator to the weddings they service.

Are you saying a business owner shouldn't be able to pick his clients?

I'm saying that a vendor who wraps himself in the thin veneer of "Religious Freedom" in order to perpetuate fear and hatred and suspicion is not truly serving any true 'religion' at all.

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

The comparison between fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian is an apt one.

 

[bripat9643]

I pick my and choose who I sell to. Have been doing so for over twenty years and haven't had a complaint yet.

Based on what criteria?

Several actually. If a person comes in to buy twenty guns and he has cold hard cash, I won't sell. If a person comes in with saggy pants, I won't sell, if a person comes in and something seems to be a little off about him, I won't sell. It's basically a judgment call, based on actions, appearance, mannerisms and small talk concerning the purpose for the firearm.

That's different, dummy. Are you going to act stupid now? You know that's not what we are talking about.

Try honesty. Otherwise....why bother?

I've been honest this whole time. I'm saying a private business should be able to pick and choose there client base using whatever criteria that suits them. After all this is supposed to be a free country. A person should be free to refuse service and you are free to find another vendor.

their

No. I've already explained why that isn't an option. You have to obey the law. The law says you cannot discriminate based on race, religion or gender. Baggy pants? No shoes? Bad breath? Sure. But if that ****** comes in wearing a suit and smelling like roses....you WILL sell him a gun.

Dumb ass.

This isn't about what the law says, moron. It's about what the law should say. Weasels like you have turned the law in this country into a joke.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Instead of posting it anonymously on message boards....Why don't Republicans make that their official platform?

(Reader: By "Anti-gay" it is trying to avoid conveying "Advocacy to Normalization of Sexual Abnormality"; which is to say policy the lifts mental disorder to a protected class... lending it privileges above those enjoyed by the sane.)

Feel better?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

That can't be right!
Our President said, and I quote - "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance"
He also said, direct quote.. - "Islam has always been part of America
Also - "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.

So there is no way the Islamic faith is intolerant like that...our President said so.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

For you, it may very well be

Marriage is, a law of nature, which requires such is he joining of one man and one woman.

FYI: another Law of Nature is that lending money to people on the basis of a deviant interpretation of 'fairness: defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home", will lead to the catastrophic failure of loans made on such.

(Reader, you should know that the above cited contributor and 100% of those who agree with him with regard to rejecting the natural law of marriage, were in total support of the Left's decades long effort to coerce the Financial Industry into dropping the longstanding, sustaining actuarial lending principles, for the Left's perverse definition of fairness. And well, you remember how that worked out. What you may not know is that the financial industry, while an important element of the culture, is irrelevant in terms of sustaining the culture, when compared to the Nucleus of the Culture; OKA: Marriage. And while the Leftist policy that modified lending principle lead to financial catastrophe... the consequences of what they're foolishly proposing here will be exponentially more destructive. In truth, you've no means to so much as imagine the brutality to come from following their road map BACK to humanity's understanding of natural law.)

Nobody is forcing you to marry someone against your beliefs

You just can't force the government to accept your biggotry

Ah but it's ok to force the government to accept bigotry against Christians.

It is the Christians exhibiting the biggotry. They are the ones passing judgement

So are you and your pervert friends.

 

[bripat9643]

He says DJs, photographers and caterers don't participate in weddings. They don't? That's news to me.

Are these vendors officiating at the ceremony? Are they to bring a gift to the reception? Do these vendors give away the bride?

As it turns out, these vendors are merely plying their trade. There is no requirement for wedding vendors to approve of the weddings they serve. The vendors do not place a merchantile imperamator to the weddings they service.

Are you saying a business owner shouldn't be able to pick his clients?

I'm saying that a vendor who wraps himself in the thin veneer of "Religious Freedom" in order to perpetuate fear and hatred and suspicion is not truly serving any true 'religion' at all.

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

The comparison between fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian is an apt one.

So refusing to bake a cake is the equivalent of throwing someone off a building? It takes a special kind of moron to swallow an argument like that.

The point of my post is that despicable turds like you defend Islam and call it a "religion of peace."

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're allowed to be a racist in thought, not action.

You think sexual acts are a race?

Stupidity is clearly the reason you are a leftist.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Oh - I almost forgot Obama also said - direct quote - "In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."

Absoultely, Islam countries are known for education.

 

[Nosmo King]

"No Gays Allowed" is too simple.

If these bigoted merchants were intellectually honest their signs should read: "Due to our devotion to Jesus Christ who taught 'Love one another as you would be loved' and 'Judge not lest ye be judged', we refuse to serve American citizens who are homosexuals".

Or we could see it as it actually is. Everybody who comes into the store to buy products or a service the merchant has for sale is provided those products and/or service. That has never been an issue in any of these cases.

But if the merchant has for sale wedding cakes for Christian weddings, does it follow that the mechant HAS to also carry wedding cakes for NAMBLA or white supremacists or the Westboro Baptists or any other group engaged in activities or promoting docrine that the Christian cannot condone or support? Or create any other product for such groups that the store does not routinely have for sale? Most especially if the Christian is forced to go to the customer's premises and be seen and participate in an activity the Christian finds offensive or cannot condone? Must a Christian accept everybody and everything in order to practice his/her Christian faith?

Things are never as simple as we sometimes would want them to be.

In the case of wedding vendors; bakers, DJs, photographers, caterers and etc., they do not 'participate' in the wedding. They are not invited guests. They do not officiate durning the service. Their merchandise imperamator is not required to legitimize or confirm the actual marriage. Could you imagine your marriage hanging on the approval of the person who bakes your wedding cake?

They are, in fact, merchants who operate public businesses, that is to say businesses open to the public.

Any refusal to provide their normal services is tantamount to discrimination.

What is to stop such merchants from expanding such discrimination to inter racial couples? As it is legal for inter racial couples to wed, and as it is not a crime to merely be an inter racial couple, discriminating against them is patently illegal and morally wrong.

It is not illegal to merely be a homosexual. A majority of states recognize marriage equality. Why should homosexuals suffer under the bigoted discrimination of merchants who clearly have not thoroughly read their Bibles?

Nosmo, I didn't say a word about gays in the post you are responding to here. And you flat out ignored the examples I gave. I want you to focus on those examples and tell me that people should be required to provide services to such people no matter how wrong, evil, or unacceptable they may be.

When you are forced to provide services off premises, you have to go to your customer's premises. Your delivery van is outside for all the world to see and conclude you are giving consent and approval to the activity sometimes much to the glee and delight of people who would gladly use that to smear you. You think the Westboro Baptists would be adverse to photographing a van that belong to gay bakers or florists that was sitting in their parking lot and having a ball with that photograph?

And the fact that the people are there on the premises of that which most offends them is absolutely giving consent that the activity is okay.

The gay baker should not have to provide services for a group like the Westboro Baptists.

And the Christian should not have to provide services for a gay wedding if they cannot condone that as a matter of faith.

It is not a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of liberty and the right to not participate in that which offends us.

Never in any human experience has two wrongs equaled a right.

Providing the services that your business is opened for is doing business in the American value, e.g. Capitalism.

Business transactions do not, in and of themselves, suggest approval or acquiescence in political or cultural events.

My brother owns and operates the printing shop my family has held since 1921. He prints raffle tickets for gun clubs where the prize can be several weapons. My brother shares our family values and disapproves of deadly weapons. Yet raffle tickets flow out of the shop on a regular basis. Does this mean our family approves of the activities of the gun clubs?

He would no more refuse the business of the gun clubs on any basis; political, cultural or otherwise than he would refuse any other business on those grounds. It is not his responsibility to vet or approve his clientele. It is his responsibility to provide the services he is contracted to provide.

So you think the gay florist should have to set up flowers at the Westboro Baptist church? The black baker should have to set up the wedding cake at the white supremacist hall? The Jewish photographer should have to photograph the activities of the Young Nazis of America? The Christian should have to serve them all and give consent to those activities by his/her presence?

When I was still in business I too served people I did not approve of. But had they wanted me to participate in activities that I saw as morally wrong as a Christian and/or a citizen of the USA, I would have wanted the right to refuse.

Printing those tickets did not require your brother to participate in the event in any way. If it had, and it was important enough to him, I would have fully supported his choice not to do so. And nobody else should be able to interfere with that choice.

There is no "participation" in events by vendors. The African American baker is a baker, not a participant. The Gay florists is a florist, not a participant.

Applying the condition of participation broadens the mandate for vendors into and area that is untenable. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet invited guests are. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet clergy is. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet family is.

Vendors provide services, they are not participants.

 

[bodecea]

For you, it may very well be

Marriage is, a law of nature, which requires such is he joining of one man and one woman.

FYI: another Law of Nature is that lending money to people on the basis of a deviant interpretation of 'fairness: defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home", will lead to the catastrophic failure of loans made on such.

(Reader, you should know that the above cited contributor and 100% of those who agree with him with regard to rejecting the natural law of marriage, were in total support of the Left's decades long effort to coerce the Financial Industry into dropping the longstanding, sustaining actuarial lending principles, for the Left's perverse definition of fairness. And well, you remember how that worked out. What you may not know is that the financial industry, while an important element of the culture, is irrelevant in terms of sustaining the culture, when compared to the Nucleus of the Culture; OKA: Marriage. And while the Leftist policy that modified lending principle lead to financial catastrophe... the consequences of what they're foolishly proposing here will be exponentially more destructive. In truth, you've no means to so much as imagine the brutality to come from following their road map BACK to humanity's understanding of natural law.)

Nobody is forcing you to marry someone against your beliefs

You just can't force the government to accept your biggotry

Ah but it's ok to force the government to accept bigotry against Christians.

It is the Christians exhibiting the biggotry. They are the ones passing judgement

So are you and your pervert friends.

As opposed to you and YOUR pervert friends?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's the simple solution; end discrimination now!

Your solution seems to be to end civil rights now.

You and your fellow bigots discriminate against those who fail to celebrate your sexual choices.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are these vendors officiating at the ceremony? Are they to bring a gift to the reception? Do these vendors give away the bride?

As it turns out, these vendors are merely plying their trade. There is no requirement for wedding vendors to approve of the weddings they serve. The vendors do not place a merchantile imperamator to the weddings they service.

Are you saying a business owner shouldn't be able to pick his clients?

I'm saying that a vendor who wraps himself in the thin veneer of "Religious Freedom" in order to perpetuate fear and hatred and suspicion is not truly serving any true 'religion' at all.

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

The comparison between fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian is an apt one.

So refusing to bake a cake is the equivalent of throwing someone off a building? It takes a special kind of moron to swallow an argument like that.

The point of my post is that despicable turds like you defend Islam and call it a "religion of peace."

And you seem to think if you put enough words inthe form of lies into someone else's mouth, a truth will emerge.

 

[bripat9643]

No the police doesn't protect my business but regardless, those services are paid for through MY taxes.

and the taxes of those you wish to shame....

They pay taxes for their protection, not mine.

They pay for yours too they do not have a separate Police Department ...Bush43 for brains

You didn't get the point. Claiming any specific tax dollar goes to any specific person is something only nitwits like you and him believe. the fact that someone pays taxes gives them no authority over my business. That's leftwing group think.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you saying a business owner shouldn't be able to pick his clients?

I'm saying that a vendor who wraps himself in the thin veneer of "Religious Freedom" in order to perpetuate fear and hatred and suspicion is not truly serving any true 'religion' at all.

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

The comparison between fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian is an apt one.

So refusing to bake a cake is the equivalent of throwing someone off a building? It takes a special kind of moron to swallow an argument like that.

The point of my post is that despicable turds like you defend Islam and call it a "religion of peace."

And you seem to think if you put enough words inthe form of lies into someone else's mouth, a truth will emerge.

Truth is what stings, not lies.

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's the simple solution; end discrimination now!

Your solution seems to be to end civil rights now.

You and your fellow bigots discriminate against those who fail to celebrate your sexual choices.

So, you have calculated that discrimination is really a"Civil Right". How can that possibly be?

 

[bripat9643]

You are welcome to show me any anti-gay legislation being passed at any level of government by Democrats.......otherwise STFU

(Reader: By "Anti-gay" it is trying to avoid conveying "Advocacy to Normalization of Sexual Abnormality"; which is to say policy the lifts mental disorder to a protected class... lending it privileges above those enjoyed by the sane.)

Instead of posting it anonymously on message boards....Why don't Republicans make that their official platform?

Why don't you squat on a flagpole?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the simple solution; end discrimination now!

Your solution seems to be to end civil rights now.

You and your fellow bigots discriminate against those who fail to celebrate your sexual choices.

So, you have calculated that discrimination is really a"Civil Right". How can that possibly be?

It's an individual right. It's called "freedom of association." Libturds used to believe in it.

 

[bodecea]

Oh - I almost forgot Obama also said - direct quote - "In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."

Absoultely, Islam countries are known for education.

They were for awhile...and then the crazy fundamentalists took over.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm saying that a vendor who wraps himself in the thin veneer of "Religious Freedom" in order to perpetuate fear and hatred and suspicion is not truly serving any true 'religion' at all.

Who are you to judge what "true religion" is? Is Islam a true religion? You know, the guys who throw people off of buildings because they are homosexuals?

The comparison between fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian is an apt one.

So refusing to bake a cake is the equivalent of throwing someone off a building? It takes a special kind of moron to swallow an argument like that.

The point of my post is that despicable turds like you defend Islam and call it a "religion of peace."

And you seem to think if you put enough words inthe form of lies into someone else's mouth, a truth will emerge.

Truth is what stings, not lies.

Keep telling yourself that. You. Are not impressive enough to betaken seriously by any thinking person.

 

[Foxfyre]

Or we could see it as it actually is. Everybody who comes into the store to buy products or a service the merchant has for sale is provided those products and/or service. That has never been an issue in any of these cases.

But if the merchant has for sale wedding cakes for Christian weddings, does it follow that the mechant HAS to also carry wedding cakes for NAMBLA or white supremacists or the Westboro Baptists or any other group engaged in activities or promoting docrine that the Christian cannot condone or support? Or create any other product for such groups that the store does not routinely have for sale? Most especially if the Christian is forced to go to the customer's premises and be seen and participate in an activity the Christian finds offensive or cannot condone? Must a Christian accept everybody and everything in order to practice his/her Christian faith?

Things are never as simple as we sometimes would want them to be.

In the case of wedding vendors; bakers, DJs, photographers, caterers and etc., they do not 'participate' in the wedding. They are not invited guests. They do not officiate durning the service. Their merchandise imperamator is not required to legitimize or confirm the actual marriage. Could you imagine your marriage hanging on the approval of the person who bakes your wedding cake?

They are, in fact, merchants who operate public businesses, that is to say businesses open to the public.

Any refusal to provide their normal services is tantamount to discrimination.

What is to stop such merchants from expanding such discrimination to inter racial couples? As it is legal for inter racial couples to wed, and as it is not a crime to merely be an inter racial couple, discriminating against them is patently illegal and morally wrong.

It is not illegal to merely be a homosexual. A majority of states recognize marriage equality. Why should homosexuals suffer under the bigoted discrimination of merchants who clearly have not thoroughly read their Bibles?

Nosmo, I didn't say a word about gays in the post you are responding to here. And you flat out ignored the examples I gave. I want you to focus on those examples and tell me that people should be required to provide services to such people no matter how wrong, evil, or unacceptable they may be.

When you are forced to provide services off premises, you have to go to your customer's premises. Your delivery van is outside for all the world to see and conclude you are giving consent and approval to the activity sometimes much to the glee and delight of people who would gladly use that to smear you. You think the Westboro Baptists would be adverse to photographing a van that belong to gay bakers or florists that was sitting in their parking lot and having a ball with that photograph?

And the fact that the people are there on the premises of that which most offends them is absolutely giving consent that the activity is okay.

The gay baker should not have to provide services for a group like the Westboro Baptists.

And the Christian should not have to provide services for a gay wedding if they cannot condone that as a matter of faith.

It is not a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of liberty and the right to not participate in that which offends us.

Never in any human experience has two wrongs equaled a right.

Providing the services that your business is opened for is doing business in the American value, e.g. Capitalism.

Business transactions do not, in and of themselves, suggest approval or acquiescence in political or cultural events.

My brother owns and operates the printing shop my family has held since 1921. He prints raffle tickets for gun clubs where the prize can be several weapons. My brother shares our family values and disapproves of deadly weapons. Yet raffle tickets flow out of the shop on a regular basis. Does this mean our family approves of the activities of the gun clubs?

He would no more refuse the business of the gun clubs on any basis; political, cultural or otherwise than he would refuse any other business on those grounds. It is not his responsibility to vet or approve his clientele. It is his responsibility to provide the services he is contracted to provide.

So you think the gay florist should have to set up flowers at the Westboro Baptist church? The black baker should have to set up the wedding cake at the white supremacist hall? The Jewish photographer should have to photograph the activities of the Young Nazis of America? The Christian should have to serve them all and give consent to those activities by his/her presence?

When I was still in business I too served people I did not approve of. But had they wanted me to participate in activities that I saw as morally wrong as a Christian and/or a citizen of the USA, I would have wanted the right to refuse.

Printing those tickets did not require your brother to participate in the event in any way. If it had, and it was important enough to him, I would have fully supported his choice not to do so. And nobody else should be able to interfere with that choice.

There is no "participation" in events by vendors. The African American baker is a baker, not a participant. The Gay florists is a florist, not a participant.

Applying the condition of participation broadens the mandate for vendors into and area that is untenable. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet invited guests are. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet clergy is. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet family is.

Vendors provide services, they are not participants.

I'll take that as your final word that you have absolutely no intention of drawing a moral judgment about this other than nobody should ever have a moral judgment about anything? I will confess that my Christian ethics take a somewhat different direction than yours. I would personally provide service at the gay wedding. But I would not provide service at any of those other groups I listed that you are refusing to even address.

And I'm not going to get into a war of semantics either. When you are at the event, you are participating regardless of the role you play. You disagree.

So we'll just have to disagree on that one.