(April 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: So what?

How exactly did a bunch of Christians going to lunch at Chick-Fil-A. harm gays?

They harmed the gays by showing that anti-gay bigotry is profitable.

(April 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: If anything it hurt their business in the long term as it closed off markets to them. Do you think Chick-Fil-A is contemplating opening stores in San Francisco right now?

So they will only open their stores in conservative areas, thus allowing them to profit off their bigotry. As long as the niche is available, stores will take it.

(April 25, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: You wanting to Chic-Fil-A to recognize gay marriages is simply you wanting to see the world ruled in your favor.

I am okay with you having an opinion about how the world should be ruled. I only have a problem when you try to force your opinion onto my action.

And why is his/her opinion less valid?

You think people should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they wish to. That will leave the gays without wealth, without power, without sway. Either you don't realize this, or you don't care whether the gays have a voice.

(April 25, 2014 at 5:52 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 5:43 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: It has not improved over the years. The corporation only lasts because it puts other businesses out of comission, hires employees for low wages, and ensures everyone in the world wants their cheap products for cheap prices.

Oh, I know. I've kept in touch with people who didn't wise up like I did. It would have been just a bit better if the company didn't violate my First Amendment rights by forcing me to handle customers I didn't want to handle, though.

Sounds like you exercised your freedom to choose and quit. Good for you.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: So what?

How exactly did a bunch of Christians going to lunch at Chick-Fil-A. harm gays?

They harmed the gays by showing that anti-gay bigotry is profitable.

(April 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: If anything it hurt their business in the long term as it closed off markets to them. Do you think Chick-Fil-A is contemplating opening stores in San Francisco right now?

So they will only open their stores in conservative areas, thus allowing them to profit off their bigotry. As long as the niche is available, stores will take it.

(April 25, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: You wanting to Chic-Fil-A to recognize gay marriages is simply you wanting to see the world ruled in your favor.

I am okay with you having an opinion about how the world should be ruled. I only have a problem when you try to force your opinion onto my action.

And why is his/her opinion less valid?

You think people should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they wish to. That will leave the gays without wealth, without power, without sway. Either you don't realize this, or you don't care whether the gays have a voice.

Blacks after slavery would have in a generation or two acquired wealth and power if the whites didn't initially price their labor out of the market with a minimum wage.

Then to correct the discrimination against blacks, the government decided to implement laws and regulations that discriminated against whites.

We would have been better off if the government just stayed out from the start.

Let people be free.....they can accomplish great things if you do.

(April 25, 2014 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: We would have been better off if the government just stayed out from the start.

Let people be free.....they can accomplish great things if you do.

Which would be a fine sentiment... if the government hadn't already had its hand in this from the start. In both examples.

Like it or not, a great deal of time has elapsed where the official government position endorsed and legitimized homophobia by going all the way up to making homosexuality illegal, in some cases. To say that now all that should simply be retracted still leaves a persecuted minority at the bottom of a rut with no way to climb out of it; you keep mentioning the power of economic pressure as a means of changing this, but you fail to realize that a lot of the time we aren't discussing rational bigots. Yes, some might change under the sway of profit, but for a lot of homophobes this is a moral point, not a pragmatic one; it has as much to do with reality as the rest of their beliefs, and they'll continue to hammer away at that- sometimes in positions of authority over others- forever.

Your position seems to be that it's okay for the government to dig the hole, but not for them to help anyone out of that hole, and that's just bizarre.

(April 25, 2014 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: Blacks after slavery would have in a generation or two acquired wealth and power if the whites didn't initially price their labor out of the market with a minimum wage.

:o


Yet another unexpected turn in this riveting conversation. Who could guess what will come next.

(April 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: We would have been better off if the government just stayed out from the start.

Let people be free.....they can accomplish great things if you do.

Which would be a fine sentiment... if the government hadn't already had its hand in this from the start. In both examples.

Like it or not, a great deal of time has elapsed where the official government position endorsed and legitimized homophobia by going all the way up to making homosexuality illegal, in some cases. To say that now all that should simply be retracted still leaves a persecuted minority at the bottom of a rut with no way to climb out of it; you keep mentioning the power of economic pressure as a means of changing this, but you fail to realize that a lot of the time we aren't discussing rational bigots. Yes, some might change under the sway of profit, but for a lot of homophobes this is a moral point, not a pragmatic one; it has as much to do with reality as the rest of their beliefs, and they'll continue to hammer away at that- sometimes in positions of authority over others- forever.

Your position seems to be that it's okay for the government to dig the hole, but not for them to help anyone out of that hole, and that's just bizarre.

Negative.

I am all for government help as long as it doesn't involve hurting someone else(by impinging on their personal freedom) in the process.

You on the other hand are content with making supreme value judgments on who should be harmed and when by the government.

You want to force that baker into making a cake for a wedding he doesn't recognize. You are the oppressor....not me.

(April 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 8:09 am)Kitanetos Wrote: Christians are showing their persecution cards again.

Hey hey hey... Homosexuality and beastiality are completely different. One is "confusion", and the other is "an abomination". Leviticus 18

(April 25, 2014 at 6:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative.

I am all for government help as long as it doesn't involve hurting someone else(by impinging on their personal freedom) in the process.

You on the other hand are content with making supreme value judgments on who should be harmed and when by the government.

You want to force that baker into making a cake for a wedding he doesn't recognize. You are the oppressor....not me.

So it is discrimination if we don't let you discriminate?

The point has been made. Address it.

double edit:

"If tolerance is tolerant of intolerance it fears being destroyed by intolerance. If it is intolerant of intolerance, then it destroys itself." - Arthur E. Morgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

(April 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What's wrong with that? The Bible says slavery is A-OK!

Apparently some courts in the US think slavery is okay too.....as long as gays or blacks or what ever they chose are the masters.

So you don't believe in biblical morality? I'm not aware of any court-sanctioned Christian slavery rings led by blacks and gays, and do not see how having a baker sell a cake to someone who happens to be black or gay constitutes white slavery.

(April 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Heywood Wrote: Don't be surprised if some of those slave bakers urinate in the cake batter of your wedding cake.

Them's good Christian values right there folks, mhmm.

(April 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its better just to let people be free

As long as they're not black or gay, and want to drink from your water fountain or sit in front of the bus.

(April 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Heywood Wrote: and serve those who they choose to serve.

I doubt you'd feel the same about stores and restaurants with "No Whites, No Christians" policies.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 6:36 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm)KUSA Wrote:

Hey hey hey... Homosexuality and beastiality are completely different. One is "confusion", and the other is "an abomination". Leviticus 18

Ironically, beastiality seems to be practiced predominately by backwater Christians with an affinity for banjo music.

(April 25, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: So it is discrimination if we don't let you discriminate?

The point has been made. Address it.

I disagree with your characterization that forcing a baker to make a wedding cake for a wedding that he does not recognize is discrimination against the baker. It is rather forcing the baker to take an action against his will for the benefit of someone else. We normally call this slavery not discrimination.

This is the point I made and you failed to address it.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I doubt you'd feel the same about stores and restaurants with "No Whites, No Christians" policies.

If you want to open a restaurant that doesn't serve whites or Christians I think you should be free to do so.