Hypocrite Liberals imposing their beliefs

[Brian37]

A simple wiki search of the earliest dipiction of the first "Buddha", dipicts him as being born from Royalty, from Queen Maya, in which his birth is divine in nature and avoids birth through the vagina.

Buddhism is a superstitious club started in the same age of antiquity as any other religion. All religions in our species history are artificial excuses reflecting our evolutionary grouping in setting up social order.

Read Victor Stenger The New Atheism. He not only goes after the general G/god as an idea, but addresses a variety of religions, including Janism and Taoism along with religions with a god to demonstrate that our behaviors as a species are in us, not religions.

[Thackerie]

I'm looking forward to the day when you are refused service because of your faith, and have another tantrum, this time about how you should be able to receive service no matter your personal beliefs.

Go ahead with your anti-Buddhist store. I don't fucking care. I'm not obcessed with your liberal war against Christians and Muslims every other Theist. But karma will get you for your bigotry, and it will get you hard as hell for your fucking intolerance just like it got some of the intolerant Christians and Muslims.

And I will savor that day when your discriminatory liberal bigot self-righteous hypocrite ass gets hooked in pain.

Notice how the supposed Buddhist has been going on and on with this rant but just recently added the reference to karma? It's as if a non-Buddhist POE just did a quick search and discovered the word.

[Thackerie]

Oh yeah, fuck me, Karma. This guy can't be for real. If he is, he must know he's gonna be a toilet brush in his next life.

That would be quite the promotion, then. He appears to be the contents of a used toilet in this one.

[Whateverist]

OP, you might be taken more seriously if you didn't insult everyone who disagreed with you.

In most cases, but then there is also what he writes to consider.

[Thackerie]

For a Buddhist, he sure sounds like an angry Muslim to me.

Maybe. Could be an angry white 'Murican redneck. One thing he obviously is NOT is an Indian Buddhist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Except America has a colorful history where people were refused service. Hence, we have laws that if you own a public business, you cannot refuse service to anyone based on their race, religion, creed, etc. The question is only whether or not LGBT should be a protected class or not.

Protected classes are required when there is a compelling state interest to interfere with the free market. The legacy of slavery was profoundly harmful and pervasive at a national level and for that reason alone made it a compelling state interest. In an age of Ellen Degeneres, I hardly see how intolerance of homosexuality comes even remotely close to racism.


It is important to remember, that segregation was government interference in the free market by the Democratically controlled South. Because we cannot go back in time, we will never know if removal of government intervention would have allowed the almighty dollar to overcome any remaining reluctance to serving all customers. In not then the lingering racism would have created an economic opportunity to open businesses catering specifically to a black clientele in the way some make-up companies cater specifically to women of color. Likewise it is hard to pass by a business in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago without seeing a rainbow flag hanging in the storefront.

[Longhorn]

That's interesting, being that Rob is, like, the nicest person here. "Asshole" is as far from an apt description as you can get.

If Rob is an asshole then I'm the pope -_-

[Longhorn]

For a Buddhist, he sure sounds like an angry Muslim to me.

Maybe. Could be an angry white 'Murican redneck. One thing he obviously is NOT is an Indian Buddhist.

Definitely doesn't sound like one. I've never heard an Indian Buddhist call anybody a bigoted liberal. But then again, I've never heard an Indian Buddhist period.

[KevinM1]

Except America has a colorful history where people were refused service. Hence, we have laws that if you own a public business, you cannot refuse service to anyone based on their race, religion, creed, etc. The question is only whether or not LGBT should be a protected class or not.

Protected classes are required when there is a compelling state interest in interfering with the free market. The legacy of slavery was profoundly harmful and pervasive at a national level and for that reason alone made it a compelling state interest. In an age of Ellen Degeneres, I hardly see how intolerance of homosexuality comes even remotely close to racism.

Would you say pregnancy would come close?  Veteran status?  Family status?  Because those are other Federally protected classes that don't have the same vile history attached to them as race does, yet they're protected nonetheless.

Moreover, the good people of Oregon voted for legislators who deemed that non-cis gendered people should be considered a protected class.  Are you going to say that this state, exercising its state right to create a new protected class, is wrong?

The litmus test isn't a dick waving contest about who's been harmed the most, but rather if they've been deprived something based on certain arbitrarily decided criteria that has nothing to do with the service being provided.  I cannot deny you service based on your religion, for example, even though you chose that.  Do you think it's fair to deny service to others for something they can't choose, meaning sexual orientation in this case?

It ultimately comes down to immaturity.  "I don't want to help your wedding plans because I find gay sex to be gross."  Well, they're not asking for your approval.  They're not asking for you to cross swords during the honeymoon.  They just want a cake.  And since every religion has an out from sin, whether it's extra prayer, confession, cleansing ritual, or whatever else, whatever sin you think you're going to accumulate will ultimately be forgiven by your god anyway.  So, "I can't do it because I don't want to sin, or help someone else sin" is a piss poor excuse.

[rexbeccarox]

I just had an idea for the OP:

Why don't you put a sign up in your shop window stating that you'd prefer not to bake cakes for same-sex weddings? It won't be considered discrimination because you're not saying you refuse to do it, and it will keep the gays away because they'd probably prefer not to spend their money at an establishment who doesn't want to serve them.

Of course, you'll probably lose business from other parties (like me) because of the perceived bigotry you possess, but at least it will keep the gays away from asking you to bake cakes for their weddings.