- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Let's drop the heterosexual part. Let's just stick with white males. It's easy for the security guard to tell if someone is a white male.
Apparently not.1.) thats what im asking you!? lol
what is it, answer the question with facts and it will solve all your misconceptions
2.) they can refuse service to anybody they want in general
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discriminationIn Jan. 2013, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes refused to sell her and her fiancée a cake for their upcoming wedding.
It appears as if their complaint is that they weren't served because of their lesbian marriage, and their claim is being discriminated for that reason. 'Course I may be reading it wrong or USA Today might be reporting it wrong.3.) ahhh now you are making progress, answer that question, what is the basis . . in court . . what will be discussed . . i can assure you it most certainly wont be refusal of service
4.) no thier ACTUAL complaint is 100% justified, what you think the compliant is is worthless and not true.
5.) nope not saying that either.
you have the right to swing your fist and move about freely.
if you decide you want to swing your fist in a space somebody already is and you punch them in the face, do YOU get to complain they infringed on your right to move freely?
or do they get to complain that you assaulted them and infringed on thier rights by doing so?
if you find the TRUE, FACTUAL answer to what the complaint, case, breaking the law is about you will answer your own questions.
Something like fifteen states have anti-discriminatory laws specifically targeting sexual orientation and gender identity. This bonehead politician who signed this bill is on the wrong side of history.
I'm curious how you come to any meaningful difference between discriminating based on race, and especially religion, versus sexual orientation.
Right....I disagree the Homosexual plight has anything to do with the civil rights movement. Guess I'm a bigot.
What of it?
Title II and Title VII need to be repealed along with laws such as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1968 and any other relevant federal and state laws. Needless to say this crap is a virus and it will take some doing to get rid of it.
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.
Tolerance is certainly a complex (and obviously hypocritical) issue
1.)Apparently not.
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination
2.)apparently you can refuse to serve anybody in general, just not if they are a same sex couple in particular.
3.)It appears as if their complaint is that they weren't served because of their lesbian marriage, and their claim is being discriminated for that reason. 'Course I may be reading it wrong or USA Today might be reporting it wrong.
I pretty much agree with these people. Take what you want from this video.
1.)sigh. Again, I asked you to give me a right the laws protect. Do you have one?
2.)What do you think we are talking about?
3.) You aren't usually this blind and ignorant.
Your argument fails because you ignored what I actually said, that it affected Christians MOSTLY. So the facts do win1.) weird im a christian (along with the majority of this country) and it doesnt force me out of business at all, in fact it doesnt do anything to me, it PROTECTS me as a chrisitain. so that lie you just made up fails the test of facts and relaity
2.) well since you made up number 1, 2 also fails.
facts win again
1.) LMAO im starting to think you just arent interested in facts and are playing games. It was not the refusal of service that is the issue. THis isnt rocket science.
just like in case of rape. Its not the sex that is the issue
2.) wrong again as your link, law and rights prove
3.) OH OHWE ARE MAKING PROGRESS . . . what was that part you said again???? i hilighted it for you
discrimination . . . ahhhhh
now was it legal discrimination or illegal discrimination?
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discriminationSweet Cakes closed its doors in Dec. 2013, in the midst of the public backlash from the investigation. The owner of the bakery said she would keep baking cakes at a home-based bakery.
So you oppose the CRA and would like to see it repealed? At least Title II?
How ironicReligion is a choice, and generally a bad choice. It's protected bigotry.
Your argument fails because you ignored what I actually said, that it affected Christians MOSTLY. So the facts do win
translation: you got nothing lol
please let me know when you have anything that supports your claims, thanks
facts win again
Not in Indiana, not anymorecan ANYBODY please post this imaginary law for me that forces me to serve gays? (or any person based on gender, race, religion, etc)
anybody?
1.)There's such a thing as legal discrimination? Didn't think that was possible.
2.) So in essence the entire thing boils down to 'I'm sorry but we don't offer same-sex wedding cakes' vs. 'we won't serve you because we believe same sex couples are a sin'.
3.)Somewhere along the line, someone posted that probably the most effective measure in combating this is opening your own bakery, or frequent another one. This seems to bear out in that:
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination
4.)So why is it that the courts and lawyers need to be involved anyway? The market seems to have already taken care of it.
Not in Indiana, not anymore
I pretty much agree with these people. Take what you want from this video.
Then you are simply being selective in your bigotry. People of the mindset that you are espousing are rarely rational in their bigotry in any event.
Where you are wrong is that "tolerance" does not require one to be "tolerant" of the "intolerant"....understand the circular reasoning there?
Ok, I disagree and really wouldn't favor a return to the days of Jim Crow and communities treating minorities as second class citizens, but at least I know where you stand and that I'm glad the vast majority don't hold those views.
No thanks - not planning on watching a 31 minute video and hope to figure out how you're making decisions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?