objecting to " gay " birthday cakes ? the farce deepens

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Barcs

We disagree.

Being gay is a choice.

As long as they can buy a cake somewhere then they are not being discriminated.

It is not a problem and a couple cases does not equal what you are asserting.

We disagree because literally everything you just said is wrong.

Being gay is not a choice unless you are bisexual. Are you seriously telling me that you could wake up tomorrow and CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex?? That wouldn't bother you in the least?

LOL @ claiming there is no discrimination involves in not serving somebody at your business because of their sexual orientation because they can always go elsewhere. That doesn't make it NOT discrimination. The purpose of the business is to provide goods and services for money. It's not their place to judge who they sell to.

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
Yeah. I'm sure. You went to a great effort to post a lot of claptrap that is dead wrong, on many levels, from the legal reality to philosophical, sophomoric nonsense. You're in some liberal lala land of your own creation, and there is no way to respond to such a litany of baseless, personal political bias that is Nazi, if anything, and so devoid of understanding, of understanding anything, whatsoever, from where the law of your nation stands to simple matters of faith and behavior that are not your call. Fact is, Nazis like you would discriminate against anything and everybody that stands with what has been acceptable moral order, for thousands of years, would destroy the remnant of anything good in God's creation, if you could. But you can't. Bottom line, your world will never exist, while there's one child of God left, and you're going down. Deal with it.

LMAO! Great rebuttal! Somebody call the waaaambulance for this guy.

Yeah, call me a nazi and insult me over my opinion on businesses being allowed to discriminate and your hateful opinions. GTFO. If you don't have an argument, you should probably just drop it instead of responding with ad hominem attacks indicating you got triggered big time by things you don't agree with. Your post was claptrap, hence why I debunked your nonsense.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh.. You're wrong" isn't an argument.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry that being gay is a choice otherwise people would have gay jeans other than those skinny jeans peeps now wear.

Yes i could choose to be gay if i wanted just as i could choose to not be gay or to not be a sexual person at all. I do feel that there are cultural and spiritual influences that can push a person in certain directions. gay frogs

Now you want to drag the term discrimination through the mud. That is your prerogative so let us view it from another angle since EVERY SINGLE CHOICE WE MAKE IN LIFE IS A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION.

First you have to recognize that choice is discrimination. If you choose one thing then you are discriminating against another thing for various reasons.

Givin that we can now summarize that our discrimination laws are faulty to some extent and we should view the situation in a different light.

Perhaps we could all acknowledge that if every single choice is discrimination then we could judge the actions as harmful discrimination. Imo that would better describe the problems.

Now we can see that the laws have tried to protect folks from harm of discrimination.

Tell me what is the harm if someone has a choice? I am not asking about the law but rather simply harm.

IMO There is no harm unless someone is being deprived of something they can get elsewhere other than feelings and both sides have feelings.

I say this because there can be just as much feelings involved in someone not wanting to serve someone as there can be in someone wanting service.

So do the feelings of servers matter to you if there is other services available or is it just that you seek to find people to harm?

Again take wal mart for example they have the market cornered on products and availability and it would be wrong for them to refuse service because there are usually not valid alternatives.

Now take the cafe down the road they in most cases do not have the market cornered so if they choose to not serve someone then that person can go many other places and eat.

There is no future other than authoritarianism for a country that forces people to do things they are uncomfortable with if there are choices.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
Yeah. I'm sure. You went to a great effort to post a lot of claptrap that is dead wrong, on many levels, from the legal reality to philosophical, sophomoric nonsense. You're in some liberal lala land of your own creation, and there is no way to respond to such a litany of baseless, personal political bias that is Nazi, if anything, and so devoid of understanding, of understanding anything, whatsoever, from where the law of your nation stands to simple matters of faith and behavior that are not your call. Fact is, Nazis like you would discriminate against anything and everybody that stands with what has been acceptable moral order, for thousands of years, would destroy the remnant of anything good in God's creation, if you could. But you can't. Bottom line, your world will never exist, while there's one child of God left, and you're going down. Deal with it.

LMAO! Great rebuttal! Somebody call the waaaambulance for this guy.

Yeah, call me a nazi and insult me over my opinion on businesses being allowed to discriminate and your hateful opinions. GTFO. If you don't have an argument, you should probably just drop it instead of responding with ad hominem attacks indicating you got triggered big time by things you don't agree with. Your post was claptrap, hence why I debunked your nonsense.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh.. You're wrong" isn't an argument.

your wrong

case closed

What's with all these special snowflakes getting offended by everything...still! Bake the cake. Get over yourself.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Sorry that being gay is a choice otherwise people would have gay jeans other than those skinny jeans peeps now wear.

Huh?

Yes i could choose to be gay if i wanted just as i could choose to not be gay or to not be a sexual person at all. I do feel that there are cultural and spiritual influences that can push a person in certain directions. gay frogs

Okay, so you are bisexual then. Nothing wrong with that, but you are attracted to both sexes hence why you mistakenly think it's a choice. No surprise considering the recent studies that show homophobes are more likely to have gay tendencies. It's always the ones that crusade against homosexual rights and speak out against it vehemently that end up getting caught soliciting underage male interns, but hey, must be coincidence right? 300+ priests in PA alone whose abuse of children was covered up and protected by the church, despite being notoriously anti gay. Go figure.

Now you want to drag the term discrimination through the mud. That is your prerogative so let us view it from another angle since EVERY SINGLE CHOICE WE MAKE IN LIFE IS A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION. First you have to recognize that choice is discrimination. If you choose one thing then you are discriminating against another thing for various reasons

No. Discrimination is about how we treat other people relating to basic human rights. What kind of laughable semantics is this? If you treat one type of person differently than others over petty differences, then you are discriminating. End of story. You can't discriminate against inanimate objects.

Tell me what is the harm if someone has a choice? I am not asking about the law but rather simply harm.

You don't choose who you are attracted to.

IMO There is no harm unless someone is being deprived of something they can get elsewhere other than feelings and both sides have feelings.

Yes, there is direct objective harm, because they have to waste their time and do extra work just to do things that most people wouldn't have a problem getting. They have to work harder and are treated like lesser people, thus not only harming them by inconveniencing their life, but also factoring in to depression and other psychological damage caused by religious people bullying them in this way.

I say this because there can be just as much feelings involved in someone not wanting to serve someone as there can be in someone wanting service.

Nope. Choosing not to serve people over their religion, race or sexuality, requires intentional animosity. Serving them does not harm you in the least, we all have free will and it's not their place to punish sinners. End of story. Just because they hate homosexuals with a passion over silly ancient religious texts is no excuse. Freedom of religion ends as soon as your faith infringes on other people and that is exactly what this is. It's like quoting the Quran to justify murdering a non believer. That type of crap is NOT protected under the constitution.

Now take the cafe down the road they in most cases do not have the market cornered so if they choose to not serve someone then that person can go many other places and eat.

In smaller towns, they DO have the market cornered, and either way that's no excuse and it is purposely treating people you don't like as inferior to everyone else. It's bigotry plain and simple.

There is no future other than authoritarianism for a country that forces people to do things they are uncomfortable with if there are choices.

LMAO!!! This is the dumbest argument yet. Authoritarianism is people forcing their views on others. How do you not see that? It goes against freedom to allow a religious person to discriminate based on their faith. I love how quick Christians play the persecution card. So dishonest. As if it harms you to treat all people equally and you should be ALLOWED to discriminate against others, or it's persecution against you. Absolutely laughable nonsense. Sorry, but by this logic, you must consider that not allowing Muslims to kill non believers, is persecution against them.

a reply to: Barcs

Ill say its all about choices. People can choose what they believe to be right or wrong. They can choose how to react to individuals.

You can't force morals on individuals and you should not try . You can't destroy someone's rights to give rights to another either. The thing about freedom is everyone has to have it or no one has it.

a reply to: dragonridr

They can choose how to react to individuals.

Yes. But when they react to individuals solely because those people are part of a class of people, it becomes problematic.