(April 3, 2015 at 2:33 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I take it then that as a Christian, if you were treated as a second-class citizen, refused service (at whichever level you choose to stipulate for this conversation) based solely on your faith ("We won't serve bigots!"), that you'd take it quietly, without so much as a murmur, and with no cries of "persecution!"? You'd eschew using your right to free speech and clam up about it? Take it like a man?

If so, you're a very rare Christian, indeed. 

Christians are already under attack in this country.

How so? Not being able to force their religion onto others by way of unConstitutional laws? Are you denied the right to marry as you wish? Are your religious practices limited by laws?

Quote:Where did I say that gays or anyone else couldn't speak out if they felt their rights were being violated?

Where did I assert that you said that?  I asked you a question, I didn't impute upon you a position.

Quote:....which bigots? You mean the intolerant anti-theist bigots such as yourself?

Oh, I'm not anti-theist; I'm ant-stupid. It's unfortunate that there's an overlap of the two, but I'm careful to draw the line between thoughtful believers, and dumbfucks.

As to "which bigots", I'm talking about the religious folks who would deny civil rights to gay folk. I'm surprised that you're apparently unaware such bigots exist. Perhaps you should read the news a little?

(April 3, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Well considering they have already revised the law, it probably wasn't going to play out very well in court. The revised law explicitly bars a business from denying services to someone on the basis of categories that include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Noo, it does not. This is the reason for which I made my other thread. The revision to the law does NOT prevent discrimination in service towards people based on sexuality.

The RFRA law in Indiana did not give businesses the ability to discriminate against homosexuals because state law allowed them to deny service to homosexuals before this bill was ever even drafted. And businesses are still allowed to do so, as sexuality is not a protected class in the state anti-discrimination law, and is therefore grounds for a refusal of service without legal rammifications. The only thing this clarification says is that businesses can't use this bill in specific as a defense in court, but the state law is still on their side. Many areas in Indiana have local ordinances that do classify sexuality as a protected class, but many other areas do not.

(April 3, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: So now free enterprise is set aside so as to make businesses instruments of government social engineering. "You will be made to care!"

Suppose a dominatrix with slave in tow asks a halal caterer to serve at their collaring ceremony/wedding. Does anyone here think that the government should force the halal caterer to do so even though he/she disapproves of BDSM relationships?

If your going to operate a public catering business then you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, the business does not get to circumvent the law because of the owners personal beliefs.

So if a group of Klan in full garb walk into your family diner you wouldn't politely ask them to leave?

"I'd like a large pizza pl..."

"Excuse me sir, where do you like to stick your dick? Specifically?"

(April 3, 2015 at 2:48 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: If your going to operate a public catering business then you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, the business does not get to circumvent the law because of the owners personal beliefs.

So if a group of Klan in full garb walk into your family diner you wouldn't politely ask them to leave?

Only if they started disrupting other customers or our ability to complete our jobs.

"Sorry sir, you're going to need to be more specific. Let me get some paper for you to draw a picture."

The interesting thing I just learned about the pizzeria case is that no one was actually denied service. The daughter of the owners said during an interview that they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. The resulting media headline was, “Pizzeria Denies Service to Gays”. The proponents of tolerance promptly issued death threats.

(April 3, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: The interesting thing I just learned about the pizzeria case is that no one was actually denied service. The daughter of the owners said during an interview that they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. The resulting media headline was, “Pizzeria Denies Service to Gays”. The proponents of tolerance promptly issued death threats.

Oh really?  That was "the" media headline?  

... also, I'm a proponent of tolerance... I must be doing it wrong, because I forgot to issue a death threat!  Crap!

(April 3, 2015 at 2:48 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: If your going to operate a public catering business then you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, the business does not get to circumvent the law because of the owners personal beliefs.

So if a group of Klan in full garb walk into your family diner you wouldn't politely ask them to leave?

If they came in for pizza no I wouldn't kick them out, seeing that I am a pizza joint. If they are there to provoke or intimidate then yes I am well with in my right to do so, just as I would with any group.

Must... defend... arbitrary discrimination...

Wait, it says here we're meant to stone them to death, not refuse them pizza!

We're liberal christians hun.