Homosexuals "wrecking" Christian careers

[Faith No More]

Where does it end? Do we let doctors refuse to operate on someone because they have something against the patient?

Determining law requires a balancing act of freedoms, and a gay person's freedom not to be discriminated against supersedes a bigot's right to discriminate.

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's because it is not a valid point. Slavery is unpaid indentured servitude where the slave becomes property of the master.

A baker is paid by his customer for his services.

By the way, where are all these gay-hating ultra masculine bakers? Have they considered getting a different job?

If I told you that you had to work for Walmart or not allowed work at all.....would you consider yourself a free person just because they paid you minimum wage? Negative....you would think of yourself as a slave.

Right, which is why WalMart is bad for small buisiness, because they do something very similar by running competitors out of buisiness.

However, no one is [forcing] the bakers to only work at a bakery. Don't like that you might not agree with the private life choices of paying customers? Guess what: time to get out of the service industry, or get a life.

[Coffee Jesus]

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.

Define "slavery". If "slavery" is making somebody do something they don't want to do, then it's slavery when the government makes you pay your taxes, yield to oncoming traffic, or send your children to school... I know what you're about to say.

But those rules are to prevent me fro doing harm!
Civil liberty - My right to swing my first ends at your nose.

If I were to force you to buy a cheap wedding cake rather than a fancy one, I would be doing harm. We should agree on that.
You're not harmed when a single baker refuses to make a cake for you, but you're harmed when two-thirds of the local bakers refuse, or when the very best bakers refuse. It reduces your choices and negatively impacts your wedding.
This is a case of "diffusion of responsibility". When many people are responsible for something, nobody actually feels responsible for it. Nobody had the responsibility to call the police as Kitty Genovese was slowly murdered outside, which is why nobody did. Did none of them allow Kitty Genovese to be murdered, or did they all allow Kitty Genovese to be murdered?

By the way, I know this isn't comparable to murder, but Kitty Genovese is the classic example of diffusion of responsibility.

edit: Apparently the story of Kitty Genovese is exaggerated. Most witnesses didn't realize it was a murder.

[Heywood]

Where does it end? Do we let doctors refuse to operate on someone because they have something against the patient?

Determining law requires a balancing act of freedoms, and a gay person's freedom not to be discriminated against supersedes a bigot's right to discriminate.

When you go to a job interview and the job is given to someone else....guess what....you were discriminated against.

There is no freedom from discrimination. There is only freedom not to be discriminated against in a way that the government decides you should be free from. This "freedom" always comes at the expense of someone elses freedom.

Personally I believe the state should provide hospitals and emergency care and it should be a condition of employment that doctors who work there treat anyone who walks through the door.

However if someone wants to become a doctor and only treat mexicans why should we deny them the freedom to do that?

[Silver]

When you go to a job interview and the job is given to someone else....guess what....you were discriminated against.

That is quite the bold assumption. I believe most anyone would agree that s/he was not chosen because someone else was better qualified or better impressed the interviewer. Discimination is seldom a factor.

There is no freedom from discrimination.

There should be, and it would be called common sense.

[Coffee Jesus]

... it should be a condition of employment that doctors who work there treat anyone who walks through the door.

You getting this, boys?

[psychoslice]

I would rather work with gays than Christians, their much more fun and are usually better workers.

[Heywood]

I would rather work with gays than Christians, their much more fun and are usually better workers.

I have had 2 openly gay people work for me(direct reports) that were awesome and 2 that sucked eggs. I don't think sexual orientation has anything to do with quality of work.....but my sample size is small so who knows.

---

When you go to a job interview and the job is given to someone else....guess what....you were discriminated against.

That is quite the bold assumption. I believe most anyone would agree that s/he was not chosen because someone else was better qualified or better impressed the interviewer. Discimination is seldom a factor.

Its apparent you have no idea what discrimination is. Discrimination is the recognizing and understanding a difference or perceived difference between one thing and another.

When you choose KFC over Chic-Fil-A you are discriminating.

[Silver]

Discrimination is the recognizing and understanding a difference or perceived difference between one thing and another.

When you choose KFC over Chic-Fil-A you are discriminating.

No, you are merely applying your own definition to the word to suit your own agenda. It is a typical apolgists tactic.

[Losty]

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit