Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 24     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DietCoke


Why does the percentage matter?  What is your threshold?  Blacks were about 10% of the US population in 1960.  So 10% is OK, but 2% isn't?  Skin color is a lot different than lifestyle choice

Maybe they are tired of being seen as different, as undesirable, as freaks, as sinners.  Maybe they are tired of being bullied, harassed and possibly assaulted because they are LGBT.  the answer to this is pretty easy.  Choose not to be different, undesirable, a freak, or a sinner (we are all sinners, but you can at least eliminate some of them).

SO WHAT if they are only 2% of the population?  I don't give a damn if they are 1% or 0.5%.  They deserve ALL of the same rights and the same treatment that you and I have.  they have all the same rights that anyone else has

Are you really telling me that if your son or daughter or one of their friends were gay that you would still say that someone could refuse service to them if they deemed it to be against their religious beliefs???  You better believe it

Everything minorities have fought for for 50 years is disappearing before our eyes.....  Thank you, Republicans.   You must be joking.  The rise of the aggrieved classes has been swift, and is nearly complete.  Once they have completely dominated what used to be seen as mainstream, I suppose they'll have to kill each off for supremacy.


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
CoachB - I don't think anyone should force you into eternal damnation.  However, if you have to refuse to serve people on an equal basis to avoid that, please don't get into the service business.  The next guy's going to tell me if he serves divorced couples, women with uncovered heads, mixed race couples, or so on, he's going to be condemned.  There's no end to where this might go.  I'm sorry, but we can't go back to the days where restaurants can discriminate.

Finally, should that girl who wanted to wear her scarf but was not allowed, (maybe she was afraid of damnation too), have won her case?  It was Ambercrombie not hiring a girl who wanted to wear a head scarf when she worked.  Girl won her lawsuit.


This is such BS.  You need to stop dreaming up extrapolation fantasies.  This is how we will become a totalitarian society.  The government will do everything to protect from ourselves.

No thanks.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #123 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Getting back on topic I don't understand why these GOP politicians won't just tell it straight like some of you have.  They should stop being so coy and simply tell voters they think business owners should have a right to serve or not serve as they wish, assuming their religious beliefs support such decision.


This is not a federal issue.  It is a state issue.  Why does it involve them?

Because you and other liberals are trying to rally the aggrieved classes, that's why.

Blacks will desert you in the next election (they'll vote Dem, but they won't show up in record numbers), so you have to develop and rally some new aggrieved class.

Anyone who can't see this is blind.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61

The crux of Christianity is that you accept Christ as your savior.


It's a pretty basic set of rules.  Wealth, prestige, poverty, special status, or nothing else matters.

Believe in Christ - that is very definition of being Christian.  If you don't, it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it is a prerequisite to being Christian.

This is not something that can be parsed or rationalized.  It's all in or all out.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #125 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Gov Huckabee just said a person shouldn't have to show up and deliver a cake with two men on top.  I couldn't agree more but he is totally misleading the audience as to the issue.  No baker will lose a lawsuit for refusing to such.


You are completely wrong.  The cake baker will be put out of business for refusing to do this.

You keep saying this, but you are flat wrong.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #126 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - Are you saying the girl should have lost her case?  Are you saying the girl shouldn't have the right to wear the scarf on her head?  Please tell us how you would have decided this case.


If you actually knew anything about Abercrombie, or the way they operate, you might know the following, instead of following your stupid liberal talking points.

Abercrombie is all about the "California" kid look.  Their store associates are called models.  I have two daughters that have worked there.

They expect their employees to look a certain way, because they are models for their clothing line.  They pretty much only hire kids who conform to a standard, because they are, in effect, walking mannequins.

Once hired, they dictate what hair color you can have (if you dye your hair blue, expect to be fired).  They dictate what shoes you can wear (sandals for girls), what clothes, what kind of nail polish (anything beyond the most basic is not allowed), how you wear your hair, and a number of other things.  They dictate the exact words you use when greeting guests that walk into the store, and on and on.

Their whole gig is built around a pretty specific image that they have carefully cultivated.  When you apply for a job there, you agree to abide by all of those image factors.

You agree that you are a model, and conform to the image brand.  You also agree that if you don't conform, or you break the brand, you may be terminated.

Someone who applies for a job there understands exactly what they are supposed to say, do, and look like.

If you don't want to be a model, and don't want to conform, then you don't have to apply for a job there.  That case was FAR from a religious discrimination case.  That girl shouldn't have been given the time of day, and she should have been smart enough to understand that she couldn't conform.

One of my daughters had to go home one time to remove some nail polish, and then return.  Should she have sued?

No, she should not have, because unlike the liberal left, we are not crybabies and pansies, and do not call our attorney the very instant that we perceive an insult.

Soldier on.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,776
Reply with quote  #127 
Salesforce is offering relocation packages to employees who want to move out of Indiana.

No word yet on when they are closing operations in gay-killing Saudi Arabia.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #128 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Gov Huckabee just said a person shouldn't have to show up and deliver a cake with two men on top.  I couldn't agree more but he is totally misleading the audience as to the issue.  No baker will lose a lawsuit for refusing to such.


You are completely wrong.  The cake baker will be put out of business for refusing to do this.

You keep saying this, but you are flat wrong.


Let's see how many believe who is right or wrong.  If you agree with mikec that a baker will lose a lawsuit if he/she refuses to write "Happy Gay Wedding" on a wedding cake, or refuses to place two men on top, please say so here.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,054
Reply with quote  #129 
please say so here....pffft..what if I tell him in a PM?


Everything that mike has written this morning, that was what most interested you?  You have an agenda dewy and you need to take it to the streets because the majority of 'readers' are sick of your agenda.  Typical aggrieved white male liberal


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,203
Reply with quote  #130 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Gov Huckabee just said a person shouldn't have to show up and deliver a cake with two men on top.  I couldn't agree more but he is totally misleading the audience as to the issue.  No baker will lose a lawsuit for refusing to such.


You are completely wrong.  The cake baker will be put out of business for refusing to do this.

You keep saying this, but you are flat wrong.


Let's see how many believe who is right or wrong.  If you agree with mikec that a baker will lose a lawsuit if he/she refuses to write "Happy Gay Wedding" on a wedding cake, or refuses to place two men on top, please say so here.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/


The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”

Klein said he’s not surprised by the ruling and called it “absolutely absurd.”

“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me the plight of the Klein family is another example of the consequences of redefining marriage.

“We’re seeing a steady drumbeat of the loss of religious liberty, the ability to live your life, conduct your business according to the principles and teachings of your faith,” Perkins said.

He said he was especially disturbed by the level of attacks against the Klein family.

“It shows that tolerance is one way,” he said, referring to the militant gay protests. “Those who trumpet the message of tolerance have no tolerance for people who disagree with them.”

The Kleins warned that what happened to them could happen to other Christian business owners. And it already has.

In December a Colorado baker was ordered by a judge to either serve gay weddings or face fines. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told to “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Phillips is a Christian.

New Mexico’s Surpeme Court ruled in August that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

And the Washington attorney general filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts filed a countersuit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network she “had to take a stand” in defense of her faith in Christ.

Perkins told me that in many cases gay couples are targeting businesses owned by Christians.

“Individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted using the leverage of the government through these homosexual activists,” he said. “Government has become a weapon that homosexual activists are using against Christian business owners.”

And if you have any doubts about the validity of his claims, just ask the Klein family. They know what it’s like to incur the wrath of militant homosexual bullies. And they learned that in today’s America – gay rights trump religious rights.


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #131 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Gov Huckabee just said a person shouldn't have to show up and deliver a cake with two men on top.  I couldn't agree more but he is totally misleading the audience as to the issue.  No baker will lose a lawsuit for refusing to such.


You are completely wrong.  The cake baker will be put out of business for refusing to do this.

You keep saying this, but you are flat wrong.


Let's see how many believe who is right or wrong.  If you agree with mikec that a baker will lose a lawsuit if he/she refuses to write "Happy Gay Wedding" on a wedding cake, or refuses to place two men on top, please say so here.


I agree with Mike.  This is an all-or-nothing issue for the gay lobby.  The fear is that if they give an inch on any issue it creates an opening.  Several vendors have said they will be happy to sell goods to gays but not participate in their gay ceremony.  They will be forced to - no doubt about it.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #132 
Lost_1 - I understand bakers have refused to sell the same cakes they might provide for a straight couple.  However, I'm saying no baker would have to supply a "special" cake which required certain writing or two men on top.

pabar - I couldn't tell if you were telling the readers bakers must supply cakes with two men on top or special sayings written on the cake.  Can you state this in a more direct way.  I can't believe you find this to be the case.  Special cakes are not a requirement and will not be a requirement, imo.  I would support those who do not want to make "special arrangements" with regards to a gay wedding cake.  Gay couples should only be able to buy the same cakes available to straight couples.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #133 
Lost 1 - "The great problems in history are seldom about right and wrong.  They are usually about right and right".  And so it goes, and establishes the need for ombudsmen and arbiters, as well as institutions for decision making such as "law" or "rule" interpretations, especially in a "free" society.  Been ever thus except in absolutist regimes where "live the dogma or die" attitudes exist and absolute power becomes truth. Caliphates are notorious for that perspective (see ISIS).  The Commonwealth of Christendom was no exception, nor were those royals who followed Hobbes' perception of mankind "in the state of nature".  Attempts such as the "philosopher king" of Athenian philosophy give perspective on finding a "middle ground" for opposing beliefs.  We are actually fortunate, I think, to be able to attend this debate, warts and all, that is if we do so in as rational a way as is possible for us. "My way or the highway" is not a rational approach to right vs. right situations - it only establishes answers before the questions are investigated.  
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,054
Reply with quote  #134 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - Are you saying the girl should have lost her case?  Are you saying the girl shouldn't have the right to wear the scarf on her head?  Please tell us how you would have decided this case.


If you actually knew anything about Abercrombie, or the way they operate, you might know the following, instead of following your stupid liberal talking points.

Abercrombie is all about the "California" kid look.  Their store associates are called models.  I have two daughters that have worked there.

They expect their employees to look a certain way, because they are models for their clothing line.  They pretty much only hire kids who conform to a standard, because they are, in effect, walking mannequins.

Once hired, they dictate what hair color you can have (if you dye your hair blue, expect to be fired).  They dictate what shoes you can wear (sandals for girls), what clothes, what kind of nail polish (anything beyond the most basic is not allowed), how you wear your hair, and a number of other things.  They dictate the exact words you use when greeting guests that walk into the store, and on and on.

Their whole gig is built around a pretty specific image that they have carefully cultivated.  When you apply for a job there, you agree to abide by all of those image factors.

You agree that you are a model, and conform to the image brand.  You also agree that if you don't conform, or you break the brand, you may be terminated.

Someone who applies for a job there understands exactly what they are supposed to say, do, and look like.

If you don't want to be a model, and don't want to conform, then you don't have to apply for a job there.  That case was FAR from a religious discrimination case.  That girl shouldn't have been given the time of day, and she should have been smart enough to understand that she couldn't conform.

One of my daughters had to go home one time to remove some nail polish, and then return.  Should she have sued?

No, she should not have, because unlike the liberal left, we are not crybabies and pansies, and do not call our attorney the very instant that we perceive an insult.

Soldier on.


I appreciate it more than most when a person can write a post that provides the readers with FACTS. The hypotheticals, what-ifs and generalities from the aggrieved leftists make for useless reading and wasted bandwidth

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #135 
Dewey - As for me, the bakery situation you describe is relatively simple for me.  Capitalism (I believe in it as a main economic system), by its very nature, establishes a profit motive, and ensures a freedom of motus operendi that should assure profit as an end for the risk taker and investor of time and monies.  It is not an humanitarian enterprise, and should be controlled by the the individual investor  or "Board of" entrepreneurs, including inclusion or exclusion of clientele by right of entrepreneurship.   As for the clientele, who are "discriminated against" (and they would be if anathema to the entrepreneur for whatever reason) , they should tell the entrepreneur that they will take their profit money elsewhere, tell him to crap in his hat, and tell him that they will urge their  friends never to darken his door or in any way encourage his business.  End of story for me.
It's all part of "doin bidness". 

I do understand that sometimes militant minorities will purposefully create legal or personal, or even violent means to "create examples" of what they perceive as discrimination, (but that is part of minority process in a free society for militants of any ilk).  They should simply be seen for what they are - extremists abide in movements of all sorts.  Only law, decided in a particular time and space frame, can determine, for better or worse whose"right" is more "right". Is "Separate but Equal" really equal? Elimination of Jim Crow laws from 1954's Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Ed. is a perfect example of judiciary determining such conflicts in ideas, but it took ML King's "I have a dream" and violent Selma to achieve legal change.  Our nation hasn't been anywhere near the same since, but we don't have a black army and a white army now as was true in the 1940s. Most have adapted mentally and socially, I think.  Process !!   

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,203
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Lost_1 - I understand bakers have refused to sell the same cakes they might provide for a straight couple.  However, I'm saying no baker would have to supply a "special" cake which required certain writing or two men on top.

pabar - I couldn't tell if you were telling the readers bakers must supply cakes with two men on top or special sayings written on the cake.  Can you state this in a more direct way.  I can't believe you find this to be the case.  Special cakes are not a requirement and will not be a requirement, imo.  I would support those who do not want to make "special arrangements" with regards to a gay wedding cake.  Gay couples should only be able to buy the same cakes available to straight couples.




Guess you skipped right over the highlighted part of the death threats to their kids......

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #137 
Lost_1 - I'm against all personal attacks, death threats, etc., including those done on the internet.  I hope none of you tell this store owner to put his big boy pants on and think of them as only words.  We should call all these people out and not just look the other way.  It's despicable.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Lost_1 - I understand bakers have refused to sell the same cakes they might provide for a straight couple.  However, I'm saying no baker would have to supply a "special" cake which required certain writing or two men on top.

pabar - I couldn't tell if you were telling the readers bakers must supply cakes with two men on top or special sayings written on the cake.  Can you state this in a more direct way.  I can't believe you find this to be the case.  Special cakes are not a requirement and will not be a requirement, imo.  I would support those who do not want to make "special arrangements" with regards to a gay wedding cake.  Gay couples should only be able to buy the same cakes available to straight couples.


I think we are likely to see a baker forced to provide a cake with two guys on top of it swapping spit.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #139 
pabar - I'm on your team that no baker must make "special" cakes.  You let me know if and when that ever happens.  I can almost guarantee you such will never be the case.  Now what might and does happen is a better question.  Straight and gay couple walk in and one says, "I'll take that one on the left in your case".  Owner says yes to straight couple but no to gay couple when they ask for the other cake sitting in the display case.  Should the owner have this right?  I'm thinking you've already said yes.  I say no.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #140 
I don't see the distinction.  Expanding on your example, there are three scenarios.  There is a cake that is already made - generic if you will.  Then there is the request to bake a generic cake.  Then there is a request to bake a special cake.  Where do you see the line between what the baker can deny and not deny?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #141 
pabar - The line is the baker must supply the same cake as he supplies others.  Bake the cake just as he might bake it for another.  No special cakes.  Same with the sign-maker.  If he makes signs with the peace sign, he must sell them to straight and gays.  However, nobody can tell him he must make a sign with a swastika.  To me, these distinctions are incredibly clear.  In your example, nobody must supply a special cake.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #142 
I'm still confused.  If he bakes a cake with a man and a woman on it, are you saying he doesn't have to sell the exact same cake but with two men on it?  If not, would he be compelled to sell the cake with the man and the woman but supply an "extra man" that the couple could then use to modify the cake to suit their situation?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #143 
pabar - Are you toying with me?  The baker never has and never will sell cakes with two men on top.  He doesn't have to start now.  I'm sure he makes cakes with no people on top and that's what a gay couple has a right to buy.  Don't put any people on top of the cake!
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #144 
Sometimes they want people on the cake and no, I'm not toying with you.

I have no doubt that these are types of questions SCOTUS would ask if a case came before them.  I am predicting that this is the direction we are headed.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #145 
pabar - I can't you help you with fears I feel are unfounded.  Just because law requires you to allow gay people in your restaurant, doesn't mean you have to put their favorite dish on the menu.  In any event, assume I'm right for a moment and answer the original hypothetical.  A gay and straight couple walk into bakery and want to buy the cakes in the display case for their wedding.  Owner sells one to the straight couple and denies a sale to the gay couple.  If this were the case before us, how would you rule?  Was the owner wrong to deny the sale or should we allow him/her to refuse selling the cake to the gay couple?  Let's just stick with this for a moment.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,203
Reply with quote  #146 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - I'm on your team that no baker must make "special" cakes.  You let me know if and when that ever happens.  I can almost guarantee you such will never be the case.  Now what might and does happen is a better question.  Straight and gay couple walk in and one says, "I'll take that one on the left in your case".  Owner says yes to straight couple but no to gay couple when they ask for the other cake sitting in the display case.  Should the owner have this right?  I'm thinking you've already said yes.  I say no.



But this IS happening now, this is not a cake off of the shelf.


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Another-gay-wedding-another-cake-denied-207495751.html


It took a long time for Hanson and Pugh to narrow down just the cake they wanted.

"I found a gal who was making gorgeous cakes," said Pugh. "I contacted her and we set up a time to do a tasting."

It was the perfect baker in the perfect spot – Fleur Cakes owned by Pam Regentin – just down the road from the wedding.

The ladies scheduled a tasting.

"I mentioned Erin in passing, and said a 'she' in passing too, in the email. A few days later she called back and that was today. And called and verified it was a same-sex wedding," Pugh said.

And that's when Fleur Cakes said it wouldn't bake the cake.

The business is also Regentin's house. She was out of town but spoke to KATU News on the phone.

When asked if she was aware it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for a business that serves the public, Regentin said: "I believe I have the liberty to live by my principles."

She is not the first business owner to walk away from a gay wedding or similar ceremony. Most of them point out they serve gay customers, just not the weddings.


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #147 
Lost_1 - My position is any product you make available to a straight couple you have to make the same product available to a gay couple.  Now can we stick to my hypothetical for one moment and take this one step at a time?  If you don't accept the "case in the display" example I'm offering up, then I don't have to continue with you any longer.  I'll know right then and there you have no line where you will accept gays having the right to buy a wedding cake from a baker who doesn't want to sell them one.  Please, one step at a time.  Where do you stand with walking in and buying cakes in the display?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #148 
If I could get these guys to state a position on the "cake in the display" scenario, there might be no need to talk about "two men on the cake" or writing "Happy Gay wedding" on a cake.  If they feel the owner can simply deny the sale of a pre-made cake to gay people, there's no reason to discuss any other options.  You're a "no" across the table. 

Some of you would be very difficult on a jury when you choose not to deliberate these issues.  Gotta go now.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #149 
Because your hypotheticals don't matter.  If there is anything that is not perfect, they will get sued, they will lose, and it will cost them their business.

The fact that you fail to see is that buying a "cake off the shelf" isn't the goal.  The goal is to have their lifestyle validated.  To do, it's all in or all out.

You're trying to split hairs.  In the real world, that isn't the way it works.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #150 
Dewey, I want to make this clear.  I am not judging you nor any gay person.  That will be done, according to my religious beliefs, by a higher power.  As an FYI, it will be done to me as well.  On that day, again, there will be no Political Correctness.  Christians will be held accountable for all of their actions. 

What you and left are demanding of Christians is that the forfeit their beliefs in order to run a business.  Again, the goal of the left is to destroy Christianity.  There is no place for Christianity in socialism, communism, ...  I await the day that other Christians realize what they are really doing with regards to their eternal life or damnation.  When they are judged, will that life be a choice or will it be murder?  If they support the Dems then they supported murder.  Will Christians realize that people like so many far left zealots detest Christianity while throwing all of their support to the Democrats?  On Judgement Day, they will be asked about those actions.  I don't know what the judgement will be.  I don't want to take a chance either. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: