HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

a reply to: IAMTAT

Nothing will happen because liberals are programmed to be anti-establishment, not fair minded - and Xtianity is so establishment it hurts... As a true libertarian I believe in individual freedoms over subgroup rights - and an individual cannot deny another's freedom except in direct self defence.

Only the will of the people via democracy (preferably PrivateSi The Guardian's Real Direct Democracy) can remove freedoms... A business open to the general public must serve people within the law. This is fundamental to LIBERTARIAN CAPITALISM.. A private members club (which a church can become) can be more selective. The State or Lawyer legally ratifies marriage, not religions, so a preacher in a private members club does not have to perform marriage CEREMONIES....

Modern Liberals know no bounds to the state, they are the opposite to Libertarians in this respect.. They do not have to be consistent, unlike us TRUE Libertarians (forget the so called 'Christian Libertarian' oxymorons of the fascist variety)... This business should be boycotted and fined for DENYING FREEDOM, not just its ignorance...

a reply to: Annee

you might enjoy this article. read the whole thing though, as it gets pretty indepth
should mom and pops that forgo gay weddings be destroyed

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

you might enjoy this article. read the whole thing though, as it gets pretty indepth
should mom and pops that forgo gay weddings be destroyed

I have read a lot on both sides.

I was also an idealistic Christian when I was younger. My opinions/knowledge is not ignorant of what anti-gay Christians think and feel. Yes, I was taught homosexuality was not only a sin, but an abomination to all of man kind.

If someone is putting themselves out of business because of a religious ideology - - it is their own doing. They are making the choice. They are not being forced to close. They chose to discriminate. They chose religious belief over doing business. Tough cookies.

As I've said, my mom was disabled, before the Disability Act. I heard ALL the excuses of why she was discriminated against - - not even allowed to step foot inside a restaurant because it might upset the other customers. The floors are slippery, the insurance won't cover it, "I might catch it", children can't be exposed, etc etc.

Do I support aggressive vigilante type behaviors? NO, from either side.

So far those with the secret video cameras seem to be the anti-gay Right Wingers trying to make a point.

I used to listen to Michael Signorelli when I had XM. Gays called in all the time sharing their discrimination experiences, that they didn't report. It happens all the time, every day, - - - compare that to the very few that have actually made the media.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not support the excuse of religion to discriminate, anymore then I support those who think they can catch a disability.

As far as Los Angeles goes, I am born and bred.

a reply to: Annee

did you read the article?

a reply to: Annee

Corruption and Govt go hand in hand.
Especially when Govt pushes to control the people. That is as corrupt as it gets.

Religion was carved out because that is why people fled England. The whole Church of England thing didn't sit well with them.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

Corruption and Govt go hand in hand.
Especially when Govt pushes to control the people. That is as corrupt as it gets.

Religion was carved out because that is why people fled England. The whole Church of England thing didn't sit well with them.

You put 2 people together its the beginning of corruption.

You're not an "island" - - society requires laws.

Did you ever read the real history of the Puritans? Did you know, in part, Southern Baptist was founded by descendants of the original Puritans?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

did you read the article?

Yes, I read the entire article.

Bunch of excuses is what I read.

If you have a business, you have a choice. Do your business or choose your religion. If you get shut down, its your fault.

a reply to: Annee

you missed the entire point then. the article was not excuses. it said that rather than threatening the owners and their family members with bodily harm, even death threats, and basically making it so they're afraid to reopen their business (which sends the wrong message to everyone looking on), they had the opportunity to finally present their case in a logical manner on the national arena. instead, they made themselves look even more intolerant than those they felt were being intolerant of them.

a reply to: Annee

Yes, society does require laws. Not laws telling me how to think, nor how to conduct my personal affairs.

You like the warm and fuzzy feeling of the Govt based security blanket making all okay.

I don't, as that is just control over people.

a reply to: macman

this has all the warning signs of what is happening in britian, norway and sweden.

a reply to: undo

So long as 0bama, Bush or Clinton tells the people it is for their own good, and people buy it, we are doomed.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

Yes, society does require laws. Not laws telling me how to think, nor how to conduct my personal affairs.

Who is telling you how to think and conduct your "personal" affairs?

A business is not personal. It is a choice. Religion is a choice.

Who a person is, who they are born, is not a choice.

Belief is not an excuse to discriminate.

a reply to: Annee

MY business is MY business. MY company is MY company.

I have Freedoms and Liberties, some of which are ownership of property. That property is my business and company.

And people discriminate every day.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

you missed the entire point then. the article was not excuses. it said that rather than threatening the owners and their family members with bodily harm, even death threats, and basically making it so they're afraid to reopen their business (which sends the wrong message to everyone looking on), they had the opportunity to finally present their case in a logical manner on the national arena. instead, they made themselves look even more intolerant than those they felt were being intolerant of them.

I'm reading other stuff by the same guy. He's very wordy. Seems to like to hear himself talk. Trying to get a better understanding of where he's coming from.

I did not miss the point. And I said I don't support vigilante type stuff.

I've been following this issue for about 20 years.

There are plenty of people/groups working quietly in all areas of progressing non-discrimination. This guy apparently doesn't know that.

a reply to: Annee

and as the article indicates, they were making significant strides and that more and more evangelicals were no longer viewing gays in the same negative light. that was a real solution . violence and threatening bodily harm, deepens the divide and invites several more years of bigotry from both sides. never start a conversation with a chip on your shoulder.

a reply to: macman

have you seen this?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

and as the article indicates, they were making significant strides and that more and more evangelicals were no longer viewing gays in the same negative light. that was a real solution . violence and threatening bodily harm, deepens the divide and invites several more years of bigotry from both sides. never start a conversation with a chip on your shoulder.

Violence is NOT the answer (nor the threat of violence), however, people are free to voice their opinion about a pizza place that says they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. And people are free to decide to not patronize said pizza place if they so choose. If that leads to the pizza place closing their doors - that's life in the business world.

a reply to: kaylaluv

that's fair, of course, but that's not what happened.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

If the law is broken, and there is a legal right to do so like defensive actions, that is a natural occurrence.

Self-defense is as close to nature as it can be.

But, way to do the typical Progressive dance move of distract and deflect.

Way to do the Regressive Two-Steps Backwards and avoid the question.

Here, I'll pull one of your tricks -- you're either in favor of individual freedom or you're in favor of a statist society with those laws you love so much!

Which is it? Are you for individual freedom or for your statist laws?

a reply to: Gryphon66
Who said I love the laws we have?