(April 3, 2015 at 9:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: What prompted this legislation is bakers and photographers being sued for refusing to service gay weddings.    I bet that in those cases, once the couple found out the business did not want to service them, they didn't want the business to service them either......but why then would they go on to sue those businesses?  Because they wanted to force their morality upon them.  They wanted a civil rights trophy at the expense of destroying individual freedom.  

"You bet" huh?
Have you ever been married? 

If anyone who had agreed service to us had messed us about just before the date of our wedding for no good reason, I'd have taken all legal action available against them.

Religious objections are not good reasons, because they are arbitrary. I can come up with a religion any time I want and object to anything at all. Should I be taken seriously?

Like has been said, if you don't plan to offer a service free from discrimination, then don't go into business in the first place.

Expecting people not to arbitrarily discriminate is not bigotry, it's trying to make sure everyone is treated fairly. You never know when you might one day be in a minority, and I'm sure you wouldn't like to be turned away by people for reasons you consider made up. And if most people hold those discriminations, you are going to seriously affected.

(April 4, 2015 at 12:07 am)Brakeman Wrote: Yeah Cato!, Da gays can buy their cakes & pizzas elsewhere, haven't you heard of "Separate but Equal?"

Separate but Equal referred to governmental facilities and services.....not the market.  It doesn't even apply here and you bringing it up suggest your don't know what you are talking about.  Gays are served by substantially the same market as straights.  Again this isn't about correcting some social injustice.  This is about progressotards trying to control people.

---

(April 4, 2015 at 5:29 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 3, 2015 at 9:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: What prompted this legislation is bakers and photographers being sued for refusing to service gay weddings.    I bet that in those cases, once the couple found out the business did not want to service them, they didn't want the business to service them either......but why then would they go on to sue those businesses?  Because they wanted to force their morality upon them.  They wanted a civil rights trophy at the expense of destroying individual freedom.  

"You bet" huh?
Have you ever been married? 

Yes I have been married.  I agree with your point that nobody wants a baker or photographer who doesn't want to do they job.  So I ask you, why force them when you can easily find one who can do the job?  You know the answer to that question...you force them so that they will behave the way you want them to behave.  You want to enslave people and that is evil.

---

(April 4, 2015 at 5:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Like has been said, if you don't plan to offer a service free from discrimination, then don't go into business in the first place.

This is stupid.  It is like saying that the problem goes away if gays are simply prohibited from getting married.

(April 4, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: Yes I have been married.  I agree with your point that nobody wants a baker or photographer who doesn't want to do they job.  So I ask you, why force them when you can easily find one who can do the job?  You know the answer to that question...you force them so that they will behave the way you want them to behave.  You want to enslave people and that is evil.

You seem really slow here. Not surprising.

Nobody is trying to enslave anyone. The problem is bakers and photographers backing out at the last minute citing their religious beliefs. With the religious freedom law, you won't be able to sue them for doing so. 

When it's the day before the wedding and your Christian baker who you didn't know was a bigot has reneged on the contract, you can't just go out and "easily find one who can do the job". 

There is no army of gay people looking to sacrifice their special day to find some Christian bigot and force them to work a critical part of that hopefully once-in-a-lifetime moment and go muh-ha-ha-ha-ha. 

(April 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 4, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: Yes I have been married.  I agree with your point that nobody wants a baker or photographer who doesn't want to do they job.  So I ask you, why force them when you can easily find one who can do the job?  You know the answer to that question...you force them so that they will behave the way you want them to behave.  You want to enslave people and that is evil.

Nobody is trying to enslave anyone. The problem is bakers and photographers backing out at the last minute citing their religious beliefs. With the religious freedom law, you won't be able to sue them for doing so. 

I agree that if a baker backs out at the last minute there is a cause to sue.  The problem is bakers and photographers are being told to either bake cakes/shoot photos for gay weddings or face fines by the state. That is wrong.  Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avikian claimed the "the goal is never to shut down a business, the goal is to rehabilitate"

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index....dding.html

This Indiana law is in response to actions described by the article above.
Now I ask you this, when the state decides you need to be "rehabilitated"....are you going to be happy about it?  You should be glad there is some push back against these state actions.  If you aren't, its too late for you.....your already a brainwashed drone.

(April 4, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Nobody is trying to enslave anyone. The problem is bakers and photographers backing out at the last minute citing their religious beliefs. With the religious freedom law, you won't be able to sue them for doing so. 

I agree that if a baker backs out at the last minute there is a cause to sue.  The problem is bakers and photographers are being told to either bake cakes/shoot photos for gay weddings or face fines by the state. That is wrong.  Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avikian claimed the "the goal is never to shut down a business, the goal is to rehabilitate"

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index....dding.html

This Indiana law is in response to actions described by the article above.
Now I ask you this, when the state decides you need to be "rehabilitated"....are you going to be happy about it?  You should be glad there is some push back against these state actions.  If you aren't, its too late for you.....your already a brainwashed drone.

The law is not limited to bakers and photographers, so your disingenuous attempt to minimize the potential for damage is contemptible.

Can anyone truly imagine the persecution shitstorm that would ensue if a business refused service to Christians?

What do the christians wish to gain by not selling to the gays? Convincing them to change their sexuality? Their god doesn't punish them in any way for being kind to "sinners" anyway, so what is their ultimate goal if it isn't just a show for their friends to say "look how PIUS I AM!!!"

Considering that this has already manifested itself in a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of two lesbians, I think we are going down that slippery slope like it has been coated with goose grease. Fuck every single person who thinks this is okay. With a rusty spork.

Already we've seen a pediatrician refuse to treat the child of a lesbian couple. Pretending that homophobic bigotry is a trivial problem displays a lack of comprehension of exactly how hateful the bigots are, and the extent of damage they can do.

There is no social good upheld by permitting businesses to engage in discrimination of this sort.