TOTALLY GEEKED!

Blankie · Guru

RE: I love Stephen King

Ohfour · Hooker

Let's take away gay, black, kkk, all of this.

Let's say I wanted a photographer or videographer to film the birth of my child. Do they have the right to refuse?

Because what this is leading to is that no one can refuse to serve anyone, no matter the reason

.

Ohfour · Hooker

Can Bruce Springsteen refuse playing at a Conservative rally if they agree to pay his going rate?

Vette · Owl drink to that!

I don't get it. Don't businesses always have the disclaimer that they can refuse service to anyone? So what's the big deal? The businesses are stupid for actually giving the reasons, that's the problem.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Sorry if this was already addressed I didn't read the whole thread

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Blankie wrote:
Foolish move on Pence's part. Very bad for business. I just read an article citing all sorts of business and revenue losses from this for the state, because of boycotting.
Excerpts: The NCAA doesn't like it. They are supposed to host the men's Final Four in 2021, and the women's final in 2016. Now there is pressure on them to back out.
CEO's of nine Indiana-based companies, some of Indy's largest employers, delivered a letter objecting to it.
EMC data storage company is withdrawing from the IndyBigData conference scheduled May 7 at Indy Convention Center. And two EMC subsidiaries also backed out.
Wilco alternative rock band is canceling a May 7 show at Murat Theatre in Indy.
And the list goes on.
There is a price for bigotry.

Indeed there is!

flan

cadiver · Senior Member

huskerbb wrote:
However, further, I do think under some circumstances you should be able to refuse service to certain people or groups.

If you are a conservative--you should be able to refuse to cater a democratic fund-raiser. Personally, in that case, I'd take their money and donate it to anti-abortion groups, but it should be the right of the business to decide.

Should an atheist be forced to photograph a baptism if they don't want to? I don't think so.

Let the free market take care of it. If attitudes are changing as fast as you say--then most people won't patronize businesses that refuse to participate in gay wedding and pretty soon there won't be any more such businesses.

In the meantime--we can preserve their rights, as well.

Actually the atheist may be forced to photograph the baptism if he is declining it because of religion.

Just as a gay owned business cannot discriminate based upon religion and must serve Christians.

-- Edited by cadiver on Thursday 2nd of April 2015 07:13:19 PM

huskerbb · Guru

cadiver wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
However, further, I do think under some circumstances you should be able to refuse service to certain people or groups.

If you are a conservative--you should be able to refuse to cater a democratic fund-raiser. Personally, in that case, I'd take their money and donate it to anti-abortion groups, but it should be the right of the business to decide.

Should an atheist be forced to photograph a baptism if they don't want to? I don't think so.

Let the free market take care of it. If attitudes are changing as fast as you say--then most people won't patronize businesses that refuse to participate in gay wedding and pretty soon there won't be any more such businesses.

In the meantime--we can preserve their rights, as well.
Actually the atheist may be forced to photograph the baptism if he is doing it because of religion.

Just as a gay owned business cannot discriminate based upon religion and must serve Christians.

I know--but I don't think that is the way it should be. There is room for EVERYONE to have their rights.

Just because this baker or that photographer won't do this or that wedding doesn't mean no one will. They can have their wedding--and the rights of those who believe that it is against their religion can be preserved, also. We can do BOTH--but the gay rights movement has no interest in "rights", really--they just want their own way and to hell with everyone else.

cadiver · Senior Member

huskerbb wrote:
cadiver wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
However, further, I do think under some circumstances you should be able to refuse service to certain people or groups.

If you are a conservative--you should be able to refuse to cater a democratic fund-raiser. Personally, in that case, I'd take their money and donate it to anti-abortion groups, but it should be the right of the business to decide.

Should an atheist be forced to photograph a baptism if they don't want to? I don't think so.

Let the free market take care of it. If attitudes are changing as fast as you say--then most people won't patronize businesses that refuse to participate in gay wedding and pretty soon there won't be any more such businesses.

In the meantime--we can preserve their rights, as well.
Actually the atheist may be forced to photograph the baptism if he is doing it because of religion.

Just as a gay owned business cannot discriminate based upon religion and must serve Christians.
I know--but I don't think that is the way it should be. There is room for EVERYONE to have their rights.
Just because this baker or that photographer won't do this or that wedding doesn't mean no one will. They can have their wedding--and the rights of those who believe that it is against their religion can be preserved, also. We can do BOTH--but the gay rights movement has no interest in "rights", really--they just want their own way and to hell with everyone else.

I have not seen anyone on the other side that the Civil Rights protection of religion be done away with. The religions want to be protected but then use religion as a reason to deny service.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

husker, if you had been discriminated against for decades, threatened, beaten, even killed, I can understand the frustration they feel.

You can't force someone to accept a lifestyle, but you can pass anti-discrimination laws.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

cadiver wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
cadiver wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
However, further, I do think under some circumstances you should be able to refuse service to certain people or groups.

If you are a conservative--you should be able to refuse to cater a democratic fund-raiser. Personally, in that case, I'd take their money and donate it to anti-abortion groups, but it should be the right of the business to decide.

Should an atheist be forced to photograph a baptism if they don't want to? I don't think so.

Let the free market take care of it. If attitudes are changing as fast as you say--then most people won't patronize businesses that refuse to participate in gay wedding and pretty soon there won't be any more such businesses.

In the meantime--we can preserve their rights, as well.
Actually the atheist may be forced to photograph the baptism if he is doing it because of religion.

Just as a gay owned business cannot discriminate based upon religion and must serve Christians.
I know--but I don't think that is the way it should be. There is room for EVERYONE to have their rights.
Just because this baker or that photographer won't do this or that wedding doesn't mean no one will. They can have their wedding--and the rights of those who believe that it is against their religion can be preserved, also. We can do BOTH--but the gay rights movement has no interest in "rights", really--they just want their own way and to hell with everyone else.
I have not seen anyone on the other side that the Civil Rights protection of religion be done away with. The religions want to be protected but then use religion as a reason to deny service.

BS. That is EXACTLY what they are asking for.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
husker, if you had been discriminated against for decades, threatened, beaten, even killed, I can understand the frustration they feel.

You can't force someone to accept a lifestyle, but you can pass anti-discrimination laws.

flan

By discriminating against others.

Again, where is the discrimination if photographer A refuses to do a gay wedding? Where is the damage? Does it mean NO photographer will do it? Does it mean they can't get married? Does it mean they won't have photographs?

No, of course not. They can choose from a variety of other photographers--especially if society is "changing" as fast as you say.

I want ALL people to have rights. You just want certain groups to have them.

cadiver · Senior Member

huskerbb wrote:
cadiver wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
cadiver wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
However, further, I do think under some circumstances you should be able to refuse service to certain people or groups.

If you are a conservative--you should be able to refuse to cater a democratic fund-raiser. Personally, in that case, I'd take their money and donate it to anti-abortion groups, but it should be the right of the business to decide.

Should an atheist be forced to photograph a baptism if they don't want to? I don't think so.

Let the free market take care of it. If attitudes are changing as fast as you say--then most people won't patronize businesses that refuse to participate in gay wedding and pretty soon there won't be any more such businesses.

In the meantime--we can preserve their rights, as well.
Actually the atheist may be forced to photograph the baptism if he is doing it because of religion.

Just as a gay owned business cannot discriminate based upon religion and must serve Christians.
I know--but I don't think that is the way it should be. There is room for EVERYONE to have their rights.
Just because this baker or that photographer won't do this or that wedding doesn't mean no one will. They can have their wedding--and the rights of those who believe that it is against their religion can be preserved, also. We can do BOTH--but the gay rights movement has no interest in "rights", really--they just want their own way and to hell with everyone else.
I have not seen anyone on the other side that the Civil Rights protection of religion be done away with. The religions want to be protected but then use religion as a reason to deny service.
BS. That is EXACTLY what they are asking for.

I think you misunderstood my "other side".. I do not see Christians wanting to eliminate religion from Civilt Rights Act. Let gays or anyone discriminate based on religion. We can keep or eliminate race, sex, nationality etc.. how you see fit.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?

huskerbb · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?

Irrelevant. When it comes to sexual activity, marriage--those are BEHAVIORS, and thus choices. I CHOOSE to engage in sex. I CHOSE to be married.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?

Actually, yes. I did. I chose to be straight.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Actually, yes. I did. I chose to be straight.

so you had gay desires and then decided that straight was morally correct?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Irrelevant. When it comes to sexual activity, marriage--those are BEHAVIORS, and thus choices. I CHOOSE to engage in sex. I CHOSE to be married.

With a woman. You never had some desires for a man and then decided that because of your faith you couldn't act on them and choose to marry a woman. You are actually attracted to your wife right?

huskerbb · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Irrelevant. When it comes to sexual activity, marriage--those are BEHAVIORS, and thus choices. I CHOOSE to engage in sex. I CHOSE to be married.
With a woman. You never had some desires for a man and then decided that because of your faith you couldn't act on them and choose to marry a woman. You are actually attracted to your wife right?

Sexual behavior is a CHOICE. You can act on your urges or not.

Marriage is a CHOICE. One does not have to get married.

Now, do I really give a rat's ass if some dude wants to cornhole another? No.

I wouldn't even be against gay marriage if they'd leave everyone else alone--but they don't. Thus this thread. They have to force everyone else to participate in their behaviors.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Actually, yes. I did. I chose to be straight.
so you had gay desires and then decided that straight was morally correct?

Good luck, Bonny...I've tried that argument in the past.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Oh, and no, I didn't "decide" that straight was morally correct. God decided that.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Actually, yes. I did. I chose to be straight.
so you had gay desires and then decided that straight was morally correct?
Good luck, Bonny...I've tried that argument in the past.
flan

Well at least Husker clarified that he thinks that actions are a choice, but the deep down desires are not. Or at least that'show I read his response.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Actually, yes. I did. I chose to be straight.
so you had gay desires and then decided that straight was morally correct?

I've had gay relationships. I've had multiple sex partners at once. Both male and female.

I made a choice not to live lIke that anymore.

I am happy with my choice.

I no longer am attracted to the same sex since I recieved Jesus into my heart.

It is a choice.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Oh, and no, I didn't "decide" that straight was morally correct. God decided that.

Why do you think some people are gay then? Did got make a mistake? I'm actually curious. Or do you think its a mental defect?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
So Husker and all the other people that don't think being gay is just who you are... Do you choose to be hetro? Did you one day decide you liked the opposite sex or is it intrinsically part of who you are?
Actually, yes. I did. I chose to be straight.
so you had gay desires and then decided that straight was morally correct?
I've had gay relationships. I've had multiple sex partners at once. Both male and female.
I made a choice not to live lIke that anymore.
I am happy with my choice.
I no longer am attracted to the same sex since I recieved Jesus into my heart.
It is a choice.

whoa, that's all I got.

huskerbb · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Oh, and no, I didn't "decide" that straight was morally correct. God decided that.
Why do you think some people are gay then? Did got make a mistake? I'm actually curious. Or do you think its a mental defect?

The latter.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

What? Not the answer you thought you would get?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
What? Not the answer you thought you would get?

Nope. Although I never really considered a 3 way gay sex. It was more of a show for the guy.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Oh, and no, I didn't "decide" that straight was morally correct. God decided that.
Why do you think some people are gay then? Did got make a mistake? I'm actually curious. Or do you think its a mental defect?

Because they lack God in their lives.

We each are born with a road to walk. Each have a choice to make.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Oh, and no, I didn't "decide" that straight was morally correct. God decided that.
Why do you think some people are gay then? Did got make a mistake? I'm actually curious. Or do you think its a mental defect?
The latter.

Ok, I can get your POV much better now even if I disagree. Gives greater context to your arguments and they make more sense to me.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
What? Not the answer you thought you would get?

Nope. Although I never really considered a 3 way gay sex. It was more of a show for the guy.

Then you really don't understand sexual orientation.

You assume 2 girls 1 guy.

There are lots of combinations and numbers.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
What? Not the answer you thought you would get?

Nope. Although I never really considered a 3 way gay sex. It was more of a show for the guy.
Then you really don't understand sexual orientation.
You assume 2 girls 1 guy.
There are lots of combinations and numbers.

Actually I do. I was just making a sexist assumption. Most women who are "straight" when they say they have had gay sex usually refer to "gay until graduate or the art school program" or "2 ladies for their man's pleasure". Trust me, I went to art school. I know all about it.

Tinydancer · Guru

Why does anybody care about someone else is doing in bed? I make my decision about lot's of people and I have no idea who they're sleeping with and I don't care. Keep it to yourself and nobody can discriminate against you for it. The whole baking a cake for a gay couple thing is only a problem if you're looking to make a buck by suing for the privilege of having some hostile stranger make your wedding cake.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
What? Not the answer you thought you would get?

Nope. Although I never really considered a 3 way gay sex. It was more of a show for the guy.
Then you really don't understand sexual orientation.
You assume 2 girls 1 guy.
There are lots of combinations and numbers.
Actually I do. I was just making a sexist assumption. Most women who are "straight" when they say they have had gay sex usually refer to "gay until graduate or the art school program" or "2 ladies for their man's pleasure". Trust me, I went to art school. I know all about it.

Well. I lived it. A long, twisted lifetime of it.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I don't understand why it's so very wrong for these people to not want to participate in a gay wedding but it's perfectly fine for the other side to issue death threats to them and their families. How it's perfectly okay to threaten to bomb the whole street. Or burn down their buildings. If you wanna talk hate let's start there.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I don't understand why it's so very wrong for these people to not want to participate in a gay wedding but it's perfectly fine for the other side to issue death threats to them and their families. How it's perfectly okay to threaten to bomb the whole street. Or burn down their buildings. If you wanna talk hate let's start there.

Additionally, I love how Christians get accused of bigotry by people who are very much intolerant of Christian beliefs. Pot meet kettle.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I don't understand why it's so very wrong for these people to not want to participate in a gay wedding but it's perfectly fine for the other side to issue death threats to them and their families. How it's perfectly okay to threaten to bomb the whole street. Or burn down their buildings. If you wanna talk hate let's start there.
Additionally, I love how Christians get accused of bigotry by people who are very much intolerant of Christian beliefs. Pot meet kettle.

Exactly, some reporter randomly asked their opinion. They gave it. And the guy said very clearly, he doesn't discriminate. If they want to come to his restaurant to eat, come on. He said they can come there anytime. He has no problem shaking their hand and serving them pizza at his restaurant. But he doesn't agree with their lifestyle so he wouldn't want to cater an event. I just don't see what the big deal is. He's not saying they aren't welcome in his restaurant.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I don't understand why it's so very wrong for these people to not want to participate in a gay wedding but it's perfectly fine for the other side to issue death threats to them and their families. How it's perfectly okay to threaten to bomb the whole street. Or burn down their buildings. If you wanna talk hate let's start there.
Additionally, I love how Christians get accused of bigotry by people who are very much intolerant of Christian beliefs. Pot meet kettle.
Exactly, some reporter randomly asked their opinion. They gave it. And the guy said very clearly, he doesn't discriminate. If they want to come to his restaurant to eat, come on. He said they can come there anytime. He has no problem shaking their hand and serving them pizza at his restaurant. But he doesn't agree with their lifestyle so he wouldn't want to cater an event. I just don't see what the big deal is. He's not saying they aren't welcome in his restaurant.

I don't see the big deal either.

I swear - Some people won't be happy until the whole world bows down and thanks them for the privilege of sharing their air space.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Or...how about not forcing their Christian views down everyone's throat?

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

But he's not forcing his views on anyone. Why should a kosher deli be forced to serve something against their beliefs? They shouldn't. Same principle here. Now if someone says I don't want gays eating at my restaurant and I'll make sure they don't then that's discrimination. That should be stopped. No one should be forced to make or serve something they are uncomfortable with. Some bakeries won't make those bacherolette cakes with penises on them. Or the naked woman cakes. If they don't want to do that then they shouldn't be forced to do it. No one is trying to convert anyone to Christianity here.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

And why can't you answer the question about why it's okay to threaten to kill people or bomb the whole street or burn them? THAT'S okay but it's not okay for people to not want to cater a wedding? You think violence and murder is acceptable but Christians shouldn't be allowed to feel how they feel? Okay, makes perfect sense.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

If you decide to bake cakes, then bake cakes. Period.

What if a man wants a birthday cake for his mistress?

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Or...how about not forcing their Christian views down everyone's throat?

flan

Who's throat are they "forcing" it down? They were the ones who were ASKED the question. They didn't just randomly give their opinion. NO ONE would have ever known had that reporter not asked them. They weren't "forcing" anything.

PLUS, if you don't like their view--then don't patronize their business. Again, NO ONE is "forcing" anyone to do so.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
If you decide to bake cakes, then bake cakes. Period.

What if a man wants a birthday cake for his mistress?

flan

You should be able to decline to do that, also.

Again, are you going to force a Jewish baker to make a cake with a swastika on it? After all, they decided to bake cakes, so in your view they should do that, "period".

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 2nd of April 2015 11:21:35 PM

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

flan327 wrote:
If you decide to bake cakes, then bake cakes. Period.

What if a man wants a birthday cake for his mistress?

flan

Well, if you're dumb enough to go into a bakery and tell them you're having an affair...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
flan327 wrote:
If you decide to bake cakes, then bake cakes. Period.

What if a man wants a birthday cake for his mistress?

flan
Well, if you're dumb enough to go into a bakery and tell them you're having an affair...

That's my point...Gays can't hide who they are. They shouldn't have to.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Neither should Jews. Or others. No one should be forced to do something that goes against their religion. No matter what religion that is.

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Or...how about not forcing their Christian views down everyone's throat?

flan

Answering a question they were asked is NOT forcing their views down anyone's throat.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
But he's not forcing his views on anyone. Why should a kosher deli be forced to serve something against their beliefs? They shouldn't. Same principle here. Now if someone says I don't want gays eating at my restaurant and I'll make sure they don't then that's discrimination. That should be stopped. No one should be forced to make or serve something they are uncomfortable with. Some bakeries won't make those bacherolette cakes with penises on them. Or the naked woman cakes. If they don't want to do that then they shouldn't be forced to do it. No one is trying to convert anyone to Christianity here.

Yep.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
And why can't you answer the question about why it's okay to threaten to kill people or bomb the whole street or burn them? THAT'S okay but it's not okay for people to not want to cater a wedding? You think violence and murder is acceptable but Christians shouldn't be allowed to feel how they feel? Okay, makes perfect sense.

And, yep.