Another Gay Victory–Financially Ruining a Granny forums forums Politics and other things Another Gay Victory–Financially Ruining a Granny

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 69 total)
  • Author
  • #7210

    “It’s poor PR too.”

    Yes, it is poor PR. For the law breaking bible thumpers that is. Denying service is SO PETTY! Get over yourself.


    I’m only supporting the idea of being able to withhold services under very specific cirumstances.

    I’m not impying anyone should be turned away from buying groceries, renting or buying a house, riding in a taxi, dining in a restaurant, buying internet service, seeing a play or a movie, etc. etc.

    The distinction is when the service provider is forced to enable, support, or participate in an event that goes against his religion or personal ethics.

    Should a talented Christian PR person be able to turn down a job from Planned Parenthood? Hell yes. He shouldn’t have to use his talents in a way that presents abortion in a favorable light. A militant pro-choicer in the same business might feel the same way about a PR campaign against the injustice of abortion. Likewise with many other conflicts of conscience.

    I don’t know what I’d do if I were a baker or a florist in these circumstances. I would want to exclude myself but I would also not want to lose everything. But if I did acquiese, the cake would be burnt and the flowers would be wilted.

    Why not go to “gay friendly” providers? The marketplace can take care of this. The answer is that for the Gay Gestapo it’s not about the service but about attacking Christians.


    You’re so wrong it’s just ridiculous. You are one sick puppy. The most immoral and disgusting person that posts here.

    What you’re advocating for is discrimination, is against the law, and is just generally shitty behavior, and worst of all, TERRIBLE business practice.

    Keep on beating that drum though, you only further the case agaisnt yourself.


    “Why not go to “gay friendly” providers?”

    The florist had no problem providing florist services (and taking their money) until the marriage issue came up. It was only after the marriage issue came up she decided to play the religious grounds card and deny them her services.


    “Why not go to “gay friendly” providers? The marketplace can take care of this.”

    That assumes there is a market. How many towns have only one florist, one caterer, one event hall, etc.? This is a key reason why there should be no discrimination in places of public accommodation. And it’s a key reason why Randian “free markets” fall flat on their face in the real world, and always will.


    People can opt out!

    They can not do business, or they can choose to do selective business. Clubs, by appointment or referral only, etc…

    Anybody wanting to and planning on not serving the general public has all the options they need to do that.

    No new law required.

    Now, there is a cost for that, and that cost is the more general availability of customers makes securing new business lower risk. Fair, but everything costs something. If people aren’t willing to serve the general public, they need to do that work and operate properly.

    And that’s long established too. It’s not like any of this is new. We’ve been through it on colored people, etc…

    But there is a more subtle thing in play here, and it has a lot to do with Catholics, but is not exclusive to them.

    … more in a minute


    Had somebody drop by.

    So it is not about doing business. There are good ways to handle it.

    It is about normalizing bigotry and control.

    If it is ok to discriminate openly, the values associated with doing that end up being accepted norms.

    Opening a business adds credence and authority to the church, where it technically has none otherwise.

    That is what this and related cases are about.


    And you’re still failing to see the obvious distinction between selling a product or service that can be done in the same way to everyone, or one in which there is a custom aspect that could force the vendor to validate or appear to validate that which is morally reprehensible.


    You are the morally reprehensible person here. Please go away.


    Oh I see the distinction. I’m just not going to validate your bigotry, nor the flawed doctrine you base it on.

    The product or services in question CAN be done in the same way for everyone. A cake is a cake, flowers are flowers, business is business.

    You are wrong on this. The Church is wrong on this.

    And you will lose on it too. Totally. Game over.

    Anybody who shares your bigotry is completely free to do business on a non-public basis. Lots of ways to do that, and given how this will play out, I very strongly suggest bigots think long and hard about what is worth what.

    Really is doesn’t matter how you justify your shitty opinions. Most people do not share them. The law does not share them.

    And nobody has to. It’s all as optional as it is unappealing.

    You, nor anyone walking this world speaks for God. That dialog is for any one person to entertain or not as they see make sense for them. And you’ve got jack shit to say about it all.

    Given your position on this, I very strongly suggest you do not have a gay marriage, or an abortion. Live pure as your freedom of and from religion grants you.

    And be thankful you actually live in a place where we can even have this dialog. In some other parts of the world, you would have your dogma cut off right at the neck, and they wouldn’t think twice and maybe even hold a party around the fire burning your pathetic remains.

    Here is the flavor of the week:

    Ugly isn’t it?

    Go and look for a few more. People who think like you get killed all the time.

    And it gets better!

    People who maybe think more like me get killed all the damn time too.

    And gay people?

    I could go on.

    The shit you put here has no good end. You advocate for theocracy, near constantly attempting to frame your religious beliefs as some sort of authority. Here, in this part of the world, it’s not. Won’t ever be either.

    Damn good thing, because the stories I linked above is what happens when we do allow religion to be an authority.

    Nobody wants that.

    You are a lucky fuck, being here, entitled, in a wealthy nation, enlightened with basic protections on religion, speech, and basic human rights.

    Those of us who get it are working to improve how great we are about this stuff and we are doing it for our gay brothers and sisters who really need the same things we do and for the same reasons.

    And we did it for black people, we do it for minorities of all kinds, and we work hard for women, LGBT, and anyone else being shunned, discriminated against, executed, tortured, bullied and who knows what else at the hands of religious bigots, high on zealotry, willing to kill and worse to actualize whatever fucked up thing they believe they can justify with nothing more than “god hates fags.”

    The thing I find the most difficult to deal with is the fact that you really don’t know any better, and are completely unwilling to even consider any better. I think you would follow whatever authoritarian, religious dogma you found, gleefully killing people and believing you are doing the right thing, making the world a better place.

    Nobody needs your shit.

    Why don’t you go off in some dark hole and stay there for a while and think really hard about the shit you say and the implications it has beyond whatever bumper sticker, knee jerk BS you happen to be fixated on at the time?

    I don’t have to tolerate raw bigotry. I don’t have to give you even an ounce of respect. And I really don’t give a shit about what you think or say or believe either.

    DIAF for all I care.


    If you want to live in your bubble and think everyone thinks as you do about this that’s fine. Join vitalogy in his e-lynching attempt. You might succeed in totally repressing any catholic thought. I would think you would want to understand how the other side feels. This other side is in no way small. I hold to my prediction that there will be a backlash and a there will eventually be legal relief.


    F&B, please describe the “custom distinction” between a gay wedding cake and a heterosexual wedding cake. Or a gay flower arrangement v. a heterosexual flower arrangement.

    How is the making of a cake that says “Congrats Ryan & Chris on Your Wedding!” any different if they are the same or different genders?


    How bigots feel?

    I think you’ve done a fine job of that. Now I know plenty. Been there done that, and this is the EXACT SAME PLACE we got to a few times before.

    Same result too.

    Nobody needs you judging them, and that goes for the entire body of asses out there who somehow believe they have standing to make other people’s life choices for them, or judge who they are born as.

    As far as I’m concerned, the whole mess is completely, totally unacceptable.

    Perhaps playing hard ball is the way to go here. I sure can’t blame the gay people for it. All the nice things were tried to no avail.

    So now we are at the not so nice things. Keep picking that fight and others are going to keep finishing it.


    Go away Vern.

    Nobody here should have to tolerate your outright bigotry.


    The example of a Christian PR person turning down a project from Planned Parenthood is different because Planned Parenthood is not considered a protected minority group, but homosexuals are. It would be perfectly fine for that PR person to decline the project for whatever reason.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 69 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.