It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen
TMZ reported that she was kicked out of the restaurant -- The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia -- on “moral grounds” and cited a waiter who said that Sanders was served “for a total of two minutes before my owner kicked her out along with seven of her other family members.”
Outrageous. Next bakers will refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples on "moral grounds." What is this country coming to?
Would you bake a cake for a Klan wedding?
Why? Are you getting married?
Can’t answer the question?
I'm not a baker. I do deal with the public in my work, and even when someone is obviously a racist I treat them no differently than anyone else. I would rather educate than condemn. Perhaps if the baker quoted the Bible as he took their order we wouldn't have this debate.
It’s a simple enough question. The point is, some people do not want their product used for purposes that go against their conscience.
So where does that put gun manufacturers? Do they have no conscience? Or do they not mind their product being used by criminals? Ultimately, sellers have no control over how their products will be used.
They sell their product to dealers, who in turn sell to citizens.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
originally posted by: DJW001
So where does that put gun manufacturers? Do they have no conscience? Or do they not mind their product being used by criminals? Ultimately, sellers have no control over how their products will be used.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen
TMZ reported that she was kicked out of the restaurant -- The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia -- on “moral grounds” and cited a waiter who said that Sanders was served “for a total of two minutes before my owner kicked her out along with seven of her other family members.”
Outrageous. Next bakers will refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples on "moral grounds." What is this country coming to?
Would you bake a cake for a Klan wedding?
Why? Are you getting married?
Can’t answer the question?
I'm not a baker. I do deal with the public in my work, and even when someone is obviously a racist I treat them no differently than anyone else. I would rather educate than condemn. Perhaps if the baker quoted the Bible as he took their order we wouldn't have this debate.
It’s a simple enough question. The point is, some people do not want their product used for purposes that go against their conscience.
So where does that put gun manufacturers? Do they have no conscience? Or do they not mind their product being used by criminals? Ultimately, sellers have no control over how their products will be used.
They sell their product to dealers, who in turn sell to citizens.
Do they vet the dealers?
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.
What right would that be?
You are arguing for allowing your own bias of inferring motive to allow the trampling of religious freedom.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.
What right would that be?
The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs.
originally posted by: DJW001
The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs. In a secular society, everyone has the right to be treated equally, irrespective of race, religion, beliefs, gender, and so forth.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are arguing for allowing your own bias of inferring motive to allow the trampling of religious freedom.
And you are inferring bias and motive to me.
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
You are making terrible, straw grasping arguments. And slipping in your tired old Russian references in the process. Come on...either make logically cohesive arguments, or simply withdraw your argument.
What do you even think my argument is?
You are arguing against religious freedom.
Wrong. I am arguing against using religion as a pretext to infringe the rights of others.
What right would that be?
The right not to be persecuted for one's beliefs.
Do you guys realize you're arguing the same point...from different viewpoints?
It isn't a secular society. It is a secular government. Our society is whatever the constituent parts are, and is in no way homogenous.
The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
The laws themselves are secular....the people being governed are not. Or, at least aren't necessarily.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001
Again, the bakers did not want their wedding cakes in a gay wedding. If the gay couple was buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding, or if they wanted some other product, they would have continued the transaction. That is a matter of conscience. The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.