Feeling slighted? Only the chickenshittiest of the faggot bunch hide behind the skirts of the ACLU and other queerloving groups and run crying to some faggot judge.Boatrocker wrote:Only the chickenshittiest of the bunch hide behind the skirts of religion. Bunch of backward, cowardly losers.
It doesn't take experience. Your vastly superior experience with queers far exceeds mine. You're the one who pores over the queer websites and news articles finding stories to keep this thread alive. There's some hidden agenda you want to come out and tell us?Vrede wrote:I defer to your vastly superior experience with what that looks like.
You may recognize some names here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_sportspeoplehomerfobe wrote:That's two. How many more do you know? Not that I care, of course, that's your field of expertise.O Really wrote:That's ridiculous. Of course there have never been any "queer" Olympians. Right, Greg? Scott?
Your comments are obviously based on the recent decision of the baker not to make a wedding cake for a gay couple; Kansas is not considering "a billVrede wrote: "Imagine if Kansas "passed a bill that would allow people and businesses to refuse service based on" race or religion "if doing so would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual.”
"Such religious-based discrimination as KS is attempting is clearly unconstitutional and will end up wasting a pile of taxpayer money."
So name-calling and ridicule is the best you can do? It's going to take a lot more than liberal-thinking to "harm" my religion.Vrede wrote: "Only a crybaby with very weak faith thinks their religion is harmed by who or what they make a cake for."
Vrede wrote:"I was referring to the crybaby baker with such weak faith. Don't be so defensive, Mr.B."
I knew who you were talking about. It appears the homosexuals were the crybabies; they're the ones who went crying to 'Daddy'.
"Btw, I brought that guacamole you made and sold me to a gay wedding reception. The joke's on you, please tell us all about how you or your faith were diminished by it."
"What you don't know don't hurt you"
You said you took it home and ate every bit of it......uhhh...you were talking about the guacamole, weren't you?
"The issue here is discrimination against whole groups, not rejection of an individual's behavior. Are you really confused about this or are you being intentionally silly?"
It wasn't a "whole group" wanting a cake....it was one couple insisting they be given favoritism simply because they deemed themselves to be special.
Are you really confused about this or are you being intentionally silly?"
And that's where you're just flat wrong. The didn't deem themselves special. They were just another couple shopping for a cake. It was the owner who singled them out, created an issue where none needed to exist. Why didn't he just say "I'm sorry, I'm totally booked. But Heather's Cake and Cookies down the street can probably help you"? That would have accomplished his goal of not making a cake for a gay wedding. But noooooooo! He has to treat his potential customers as second class citizens and not worthy of his work. It's not a matter of what he believes - it's simply a matter of what obligations he has when he opens a business to the public.Mr.B wrote:....it was one couple insisting they be given favoritism simply because they deemed themselves to be special.
]
I suppose he could have done that; but then again we don't know the whole story behind this. The "gays" could have been obnoxious and turned unruly when they were told he couldn't (or wouldn't) bake them a cake. The media always paints the story of the "poor victim"....and yes....it is a matter of what he believes, but, like you, the court could care less about his religious convictions or his Constitutional Rights.O Really wrote: "Why didn't he just say "I'm sorry, I'm totally booked. But Heather's Cake and Cookies down the street can probably help you"? That would have accomplished his goal of not making a cake for a gay wedding. But noooooooo! He has to treat his potential customers as second class citizens and not worthy of his work. It's not a matter of what he believes - it's simply a matter of what obligations he has when he opens a business to the public."
No. The direction in which the morals of mankind is turning doesn't affect my faith in God. My faith in man is another story........Vrede wrote: "Is your faith that shaky after all?"
Because it's his friggin' right to refuse service to anyone. Retail bigotry? You queer lovers come up with some of the damnest wordings to spew your whining.Vrede wrote:That's what I thought. Now, tell us why we should allow a baker to practice retail bigotry just because his/her faith is so shaky that it will be diminished by who gets a wedding cake.
No, it isn't. Look it up.homerfobe wrote: Because it's his friggin' right to refuse service to anyone.
Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians.O Really wrote:And then there's Arizona Quixote. Can't wait to see the court hand them their ass on this one...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ari ... ate-n35081
I checked your link and found this post by a reader of that site you linked:Vrede wrote: "No "service especially requested" (whatever that means) there, just the standard wedding photography."
No, only if they want to operate a business open to the public. If they want to have a private club serving only members, they can have whatever restrictions they want. Seriously, do you think Wal-Mart ought to be able to decline selling to Muslims just because the primary shareholders are (theoretically) Christian?Mr.B wrote: I take this to mean that liberals believe that business owners should be forced to do business with any and everyone; their religious convictions and religious freedom is worthless.
How is that a strawman? Let's replace Muslim with Jew.... I think you can see where that went.Mr.B wrote:None of the businesses mentioned were refusing to do business based on the customer's religion.
Yours is a strawman analogy based on a knee-jerk reaction.
Read my previous post concerning Walmart.