re: Anti-First Amendment Rights LGBT activist decry Kansas new law

quote:

---

This bill would make it ok to cancel a couple reservations if two guys showed up to your restaurant on valentines day?

---

Having a bill and all that seems like a lot of trouble.

Why don't those restaurants simply take hot dogs, sausage, kiebasa, and such ... along with quiche ... off the menus ?

quote:

---

Because then fat slobs would stop eating there, and that may attract even more gays (although they would probably lose a few who are into that)

---

Damn, you are one hell of a hypocrite to lecture others about their preaching while not seeing how you are just as guilty of what you hate. Of course, you have that right until someone sues your arse for hurting their feelings because you called them a fat slob.

quote:

---

What is the moral dilemma? what exactly are they doing wrong?

---

You are being intentionally obtuse. You realize that some feel homosexuality is immoral. You don't have to agree with it, but it's obvious that many feel that way.

This isn't a case where someone is saying they won't serve lunch to a homosexual...or let them enter an establishment. This is a case where someone feels it would be personally immoral to personally participate in an event that is, in their mind, blatantly immoral. Marriage is an endorsement of a relationship. Serving someone a sandwich is not. Perhaps that's why you see so much push back on the former...and not a single example that I've heard on the latter.

quote:

---

And we keep limiting this to the wedding cake situation. This bill would make it ok to cancel a couple reservations if two guys showed up to your restaurant on valentines day? What moral dilemma is there serving food to people?

---

Don't conflate the legal issues at hand with the "subhuman" statement you made. They are different issues. My comment was that someone who makes a decision not to participate in a homosexual wedding is not treating the couple as subhuman. They are following a moral path that they believe is right.

quote:

---

This isn't a case where someone is saying they won't serve lunch to a homosexual...or let them enter an establishment

---

This sint' about this case, it is about the bill in the OP that says there would be no government sanction against business that refuse service to gay couples.

quote:

---

Don't conflate the legal issues at hand with the "subhuman" statement you made. They are different issues. My comment was that someone who makes a decision not to participate in a homosexual wedding is not treating the couple as subhuman. They are following a moral path that they believe is right.

---

So were the NAzis, but that doesn't make it objectively right. I also want to know what sin the baker would be committing by selling the gays a cake? Is it a greater sin that selling the couple who has pre marital sex a cake? is greater than selling a cake to an unfaithful couple?

LGBTXOXOLOLRSVPDIAFESAD and black are the same thing?


Who knew?


Can't believe they found the elusive gay gene ... and evidently, I missed it. Dang it.

quote:

---

This sint' about this case, it is about the bill in the OP that says there would be no government sanction against business that refuse service to gay couples.

---

Again, I responded to your "subhuman" comment. You are conflating the two issues...probably because you are struggling to defend your statement.

quote:

---

I also want to know what sin the baker would be committing by selling the gays a cake? Is it a greater sin that selling the couple who has pre marital sex a cake? is greater than selling a cake to an unfaithful couple?

---

You don't get to decide what others think a sin is. Hell, for may people, they themselves don't choose their morality. That's kind of the point.

But therein lies the huge irony in this. The people who are choosing not to participate in a wedding are making a personal decision...they are not trying influence you or others to accept their moral stance. On the other hand, here you are asking people to justify their moral stance to you as if you have some authority to approve of it. You have become what you hate.

FWIW, if I were a baker, and a homosexual couple wanted me to bake a cake for their wedding, I would do it for them.

Toddys butt hurt and those of his ilk is a product of being in love with their form of sin and it comes with a burning sensation(passion) in their hearts above everything else. Jesus spoke allegorically of the path to hell using the phrase wide is the way and the traffic jam to get there is just like L A traffic on an interstate. The first sentence is a reference to Orwells 1984 and the pigs(oligarchs and apparatchniki) of political and sociological power for all they rule over. The federal judges in a broad stroke pen are legislating from the bench and Toddy just loves that shite, the advocacy will never end with just marriage, you can bet a whole lot of money on that one. Oh BTW I don't do drugs except prescriptions for certain conditions and none are mental.

You are exactly right. Sammy is asking people to defend their conscience and beliefs to him. I don't worship Sammy so why in the hell does he think I must answer his questions. He is the hypocrite just like those lgbt activists that are using government force on others.

If that speech is so immoral, then why should gay men be allowed to continue to have the "privacy" to have indiscriminate sex? The lgBIt rights groups are protecting privacy that brings disease to unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. What does he say about that? Maybe the rest of society has the right to demand that all be tested for STD's, HIV, hep, etc and that those people infected with those diseases be punished with jail time if they infect anyone else and participate in sexual activities.

They hide behind the "what consenting adults do isn't anyone elses business." Well, what about those people that didn't consent to their spouse having sex with others? The government power needs to stop such immoral acts now because that is much more immoral than hurting someones "feelings" with your speech and beliefs.

quote:

---

The bill would prohibit government sanctions or anti-discrimination lawsuits against individuals, groups and businesses over faith-based refusals to recognize marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to couples.

---

So its a pro-discrimination law.

Awesome.

Hey why not allow faith based deprivation of rights based on color? Yay let's go back to Jim Crow!

quote:

---

Yay let's go back to Jim Crow!

---

Wouldn't it be "Jim Blow" this time around?