Why isn't refusing to serve LGBT folks as a public business

Fifty-two percent of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were polled oppose religiously based service refusals, a 14 percent increase from 2015 to 2016, the survey reported. The group had the largest opinion shift among U.S. faith communities included in the report.

Overall, 6 in 10 Americans (61 percent) oppose allowing small business owners to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers for religious reasons, according to Public Religion Research Institute. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points.

However, this figure falls to around 5 in 10 when researchers specify that the services are related a wedding, a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found. Half of Americans (48 percent) say businesses that provide wedding services should be able to refuse to provide those services to same-sex couples if the business owner has religious objections, Pew reported.

https://youtu.be/U89LnISqd8k

>>130815205
>baking a cake for a gay couple indicates the bakery endorses homosexuality or gay marriage.

Show me where ANY bakery EVER has refused to make a cake for someone because the customer was gay.

You can't, because it hasn't happened. Ever.

Stop lying, faggot.

>>130815205
Are you retarded? You're actually retarded. You say in your post that the Supreme Court has ruled before and then you ask why something is not illegal. It's because the supreme court has ruled that it's not illegal
This post makes no sense.
>Baking a cake for Muslims does not indicate the bakery endorses Islam any more than baking a cake for a gay couple indicates the bakery endorses homosexuality or gay marriage.
You lack logic. You lack clarity. You lack coherence.

I'm literally raging, not at the content of this post, but at how poorly made it is.
If you're gonna make propaganda. Try harder.

Sage

>THIS CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL

>NOT
AN
>ARGUMENT

>>>/tumblr/

>>130815831
No the Supreme Court has not rules specifically on whether the Civil Rights Act sex provision covers sexuality.

>>130815792
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464222/Gay-couple-feel-dehumanized-Christian-baker-refuses-make-wedding-cake.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-closed-_n_3856184.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/us/colorado-court-rules-against-baker-who-refused-to-serve-same-sex-couples.html

>>130815205
bump

>>130816194
You know, no one comes here to read 50 articles about faggots.
Explain yourself in logical terms.
Why are you just posting statistics that show x amount of people support, that means nothing to me.
Posting cases where it's happened also means nothing to me.
Explain to me, in your own words, why it's wrong. Can you manage that?
Are you actually retarded though?

>>130816761
Well if this article gets 100+ bumps I want my sources out in advance to answer common questions.

I think it is wrong because public accommodations have to serve anyone who isn't disruptive/rude to the business. That has been held to be the model with Blacks, that businesses must serve them. People tried to complain in the 1950's and before that their religion compelled them not to serve Blacks and those arguments failed. I don't see why this is any different. Gays are a modern scapegoat, and a vulnerable minority easily abused who, due to small numbers, still lack significant organizing political power, and just because a group can be taken advantage of, because their numbers are small, and their views don't hold identical to yours, doesn't make it right.

Businesses must serve all customers who do not harm the business. I think gays have as much right to be served in a public business as Christians, for whom federal protections apply to any public business. I have never heard Christians complain that they are protected by the Civil Rights Act, and I am frustrated that the Supreme Court will not rule on the issue and actively avoid it.

Gays shouldn't have to shop around at different stores to find one that allows them anymore than Christians or straight people should have to.

>>130815205
public business? are you fucking stupid?

File: 1487045818299.png (244KB, 480x491px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 480x491px

>>130815205
>This only applies to public businesses
>Public businesses
>Public
Businesses are private entities. As a business owner I should have the right to sell and provide a service to whomever I please unless it's an enemy of the state. Forcing me to bake a cake is tyranny.

Besides, why would you want a cake from someone that hates your kind anyways?

>>130817326
Public accommodation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4] Title II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests," and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.

Various states in the United States, in a number of nonuniform laws, provide for nondiscrimination in public accommodation.

The wording in that article highlights the problem. "Percentage of members of a faith community who oppose ALLOWING small business owners..."

Why do people think they should have a significant legal say in how a "business owner" runs their business if said owner is not harming them? When a customer and a "business owner" do business together, it is a voluntary arrangement to exchange labor. The customer wants to pay using capital earned through their labor, by providing a good or a service. The "business owner" wants to provide a good or service in return for that capital.

The customer has total control over who they do business with. Whether the "business owner" with whom they are exchanging labor is black or white, straight or gay, Democrat or Republican, or falls into any other group the customer finds unfavorable, the customer can choose to exchange their labor with someone else. Not so for the "business owner".

"Business owner" is an arbitrary classification for the purposes of government controlling one half of all transactions by degrees. When you spend capital to acquire a good or service, you are free. When you earn capital by providing a good or service, you are under the thumb of the government.

>>130817384
You have to bake cakes for Blacks. Businesses that are open to the public are held to rules by the Civil Rights Act that no Christian business I have seen has disputed in the last 10 years. I don't understand why they feel it is ok to discriminate against gays, not Blacks, but the evidence that Mormons are now in majority supportive of gays rights to be served by all public businesses is heartening. The only group standing in opposition to this is evangelical protestants, and even so, just barely at 42%. I think this will change.

Most of the time when people go into bakeries there aren't signs "This is a Christian baker. He does not serve gays!". I think people just want to buy a cake and it is awkward and shameful to be refused service.

>>130816306
1. They didn't refuse to make the cake because the customer was gay, but because it was going to be used in a gay wedding.
2. Forcing one party in a transaction to service all prospective parties on the other side of the transaction is tyranny, violating their freedom to associate with whomever they wish.

>>130817707
They did it because the customer was gay. The wedding is incidental to their sexuality.

Nobody complains about restaurants being forced to seat Black patrons. I don't see why gays should be treated differently.

Why use the term freedom of association when you really mean freedom of discrimination?

Shit like this is self regulating. If you refuse to bake a cake or whatever to some person that person will just spend his money elsewhere. The business that refuses service to some group will eventually be outcompeeted by other business that don't.

>>130815205
Should Islamic bakeries be forced to make gay wedding cakes? Why not ask them?

>>130817238
Again. You still aren't getting my point
Don't just say
>Well blacks have this right, so we should too
or
>This is the law for public x, so it should be the case for private places to.
FORGET ABOUT THE FUCKING LAW. TELL ME IN EMPIRICAL TERMS. IF WE CREATED A NEW SOCIETY TODAY WITH COMPLETELY NEW LAWS, WHY SHOULD WE NOT ALLOW BUSINESSES TO REFUSE GAY

>Businesses must serve all customers who do not harm the business
not an argument
>. I think gays have as much right to be served in a public business as Christians,
EXPLAIN WHY.
>Gays shouldn't have to shop around at different stores to find one that allows them anymore than Christians or straight people should have to
EXPLAIN WHY

>>130817705
Again, as a private business owner I should have the right to serve whomever I please. I should not be forced to serve someone for any reason, be they black, white, male, female, gay, lesbian, Christian, Muslim, etc. Private business get around federal enforcement of these mandates already. They just won't say it's because you're black or gay.

If this bothers you so much, then simply do not buy good and services from the business. If the public cares enough then that company will go out of business since they are losing revenue from this group.

>>130815205
becuase freeom of religion is a right

>>130817825
>They did it because the customer was gay. The wedding is incidental to their sexuality.
The same bakers are quite open that they have and would bake cakes for gay people. They refuse to bake cakes to be used in gay weddings.

If a third party walked into the bakery and ordered a cake, and that third party were heterosexual, and that third party asked for a cake celebrating gay marriage, they would be refused. Are they being refused because they are gay? Obviously not, because they are not gay.

>>130815205
as far as i'm concerned, homosexuals, LGBT, feminists, transsexuals and all hat post modernist crap just need to be culled

>>130818115
Businesses should be compelled to serve all non-disruptive customers. If they are open to the public, they must serve the public.

>>130818223
Freedom of religion ends when it starts curtailing the rights of others.

>>130818121
You don't have the right to refuse service to women, Blacks, or Christians. I am merely saying gays should be a part of those groups.

Its not like when people went to Christian bakeries there was a big sign saying "We are Christian! No gay wedding cakes!". Why should gays be unduly obligated to shop around for baked goods when no other group is compelled to do so?

>>130818342
Obviously their sexuality is relevant. You can twist it around but them being gay is why they are refusing service, not that they are having a wedding.

>>130817825
>Nobody complains about restaurants being forced to seat Black patrons
I do. The government telling business who they must serve is every bit as tyrannical as the government telling businesses who they must not serve, as was the case with Jim Crow laws.
>Why use the term freedom of association when you really mean freedom of discrimination?
Freedom of association is also the freedom to discriminate, yes. As a "customer," I have the freedom to discriminate against "business owners". Why do "business owners" not have the freedom to discriminate against customers?

The price of liberty is people getting to do things you don't like. I don't like discrimination, but it is necessarily an option for free people.

>>130818403
>Businesses should be compelled to serve all non-disruptive customers. If they are open to the public, they must serve the public.

EXPLAIN WHY
>EXPLAIN WHY
EXPLAIN WHY
>EXPLAIN WHY
EXPLAIN WHY
>EXPLAIN WHY

NOT BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW. NOT BECAUSE THE BLACKS HAVE THIS RIGHT, SO WE SHOULD TOO. NOT BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT IT.

IGNORING WHATEVER THE LAW CURRENTLY SAYS.

YOU AREN'T FORMULATING AN ARGUMENT, THEREFORE WE CANNOT HAVE A DISCUSSION. UNTIL YOU DO SO, THIS IS MERELY A PROPAGANDA THREAD.

>>130818403
I'm saying that I should have the right. The feds have no right to tell me who I can provide my services to, even with the Civil Rights act. How are the feds going to determine if a private business does not service blacks? How are they going to determine the same for gays? What if the business owner claims they did not provide service because the customer(s) was/were rude? That's federal funds that can be used somewhere that matters far more.

Competition in the free market would drive these companies out of business if they refused services to these groups of people.

>>130815205
>Some dipshit coming pre-equipped with 50+ articles because he had a very bad day and wants to make a rant blog on a Mongolian Basket Weaving image board, expecting no arguments back with his multitude of evidence like any other snowflake would concieve.
And I suppose you're going to plan on shouting this very thing at your university, huh? If that's how you manage your time then holy shit you're a mega faggot--the kind that any sane gay person actively tries to avoid.

>>130818465
Would the same bakery refuse to make a cake celebrating gay marriage for a heterosexual?

Would the same bakery happily make a cake celebrating Christianity for a homosexual?

If you answered 'yes' to these questions, which is the only honest answer, then you've contradicted your own argument.

>>130815205
Fuck faggots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Q_qwPAVvc

>>130815205
>Why isn't refusing to serve LGBT folks as a public business outlawed?

Because no one likes a faggot.

>UNTIL OP HAS FORMULATED AN ARGUMENT, STOP BUMPING A SLIDE THREAD. THERE'S NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT BECAUSE ALL OP HAS POSTED ARE ARTICLES AND REPEATED THEIR OPINION IN VARIOUS FORMS

>>130818719
Because I think gays deserve the right to be treated fairly. How is that so hard to understand?

>>130818819
But they do have that right. When /pol/ overturns CRA protections for Christians we can talk about how everyone is equal but having laws that protect Christians but not gays is unequal.

>>130818930
What? Gay marriage for a heterosexual?

Businesses are (rarely, but still) just trying to fuck with gay people because they can. A bakery making a cake for a political organization doesn't mean they endorse those views. It is a cake, not compelled speech.

>>130819119
So if the bakery refused to provide service for the fag on the basis that the customer was being rude you would be ok with it?

>>130817705
>I think people just want to buy a cake and it is awkward and shameful to be refused service.
It's also awkward and shameful to drag some guy all the way to the supreme court in an effort to force him to bake you a cake, which is part of the reason why they have refused to do anything about it. Those kinds of cases are circuses that have consequences beyond the original reason why it was filed. That guy you drag to court will more than likely have his buisness and reputation ruined in the process because progressives will come out of the woodwork to shit on him. Good job, now that guy really hates faggots and you disrupted his way of life. It's absolute horseshit that the government can come in and force a private enterprise to serve someone.

>>130818403
>your rights end where my feelings begin
Great. Now lets outlaw "hate" speech. Surely that won't set precedence for an even more powerful central state. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. It's progressive!

>>130815205
1. Bandwagon fallacy
2. Just don't tell them why you're refusing service.

>>130815205
Start going to muslim bakeries asking them to bake your gay gake. GL

>>130819119
ARE YOU LITERALLY MENTALLY RETARDED? TELL ME PLEASE YOU HAVE SOME MENTAL DEGENERATIVE DISEASE

>Because I think gays deserve the right to be treated fairly. How is that so hard to understand?
EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS. ARE YOU RETARDED. EXPLAIN WHY GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS STRAIHGT PEOPLE IN ALL CASES BY BUSINESS OWNERS.

>EXPLAIN WHY
EXPLAIN WHY
>EXPLAIN WHY
EXPLAIN WHY
>EXPLAIN WHY
EXPLAIN WHY
>EXPLAIN WHY
EXPLAIN WHY

EXPLAIN WHY GAYS DESERVE TO BE TREATED FAIRLY.

>>130819095
Gays should have the right to be served by any business open to the public is definitely an argument.

>>130819293
Absolutely.

>>130819309
It is more awkward to publicly shame your customers for their biological reality. Yes, you can get a cake elsewhere, but it is much easier, and more profitable, for the bakery owner to simply provide such a cake. If they oppose the message, they could have offered to make a blank cake with no obviously sexual or gay marriage symbology and give the icing to the gay couple to create their own message. I don't see how baking a plain, frosted cake goes against your duties as a Christian. The book says don't have gay sex, not don't make cakes for gays.

>>130819119
You're avoiding the question. I didn't say "gay marriage for a heterosexual". I said a cake celebrating gay marriage.

For example, when the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, any heterosexual could've walked into a cake shop asking for a cake to celebrate with their activist friends, and asked for it to say something like "YES! Gay marriage!"

If the "business owner" refused to make the cake for that heterosexual customer because it celebrates gay marriage, are they discriminating against the customer based on that customer being a homosexual?

File: gay families - University of Texas study.jpg (117KB, 1200x594px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1200x594px

>>130819119
# of new stains of virus bred annually by Christian sexual community promiscuity in San Francisco alone: 0

# of new stains of virus bred annually by homosexual community promiscuity in San Francisco alone: 200

The two are not equivalent. Homosexuality is harmful to society.

>>130819514
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
I say that gays should all be gassed. Me saying it doesn't make it morally right. It doesn't make it correct. So explain your point. Otherwise it doesn't make an argument
EXPLAIN.
EXPLAIN
EXPLAIN
EXPLAIN

>>130815205
> folks
Fuck off to your gay village.
Nah seriously get peopleto stop shoving thier dicks in kids faces and being a honey pot to other unrelated ideologies then come talk.

>>130819492
Gays are humans and gay because of a biological reality they should not be penalized for by those who have religious beliefs against them.

>>130819538
I would have nothing against a bakery refusing to write a particular message on a cake and just saying, ok you get a plain frosted cake and a piping bag with some icing, but refusing to make the cake altogether is what I oppose. In that case (the hypothetical you have outlined) the customer is being discriminated against because of their support for gays, so yes, just as if a bakery refused to provide a cake for a Black wedding but ordered by someone White.

>>130819565
And allowing marriage and adoption rights for gays will provably lower the rate of STDs in the gay community, which is already happening amongst White gays, but sadly not yet amongst minority gay folks.

>>130819711
I have explained myself multiple times. Perhaps you could give me a sample argument that meets your standard of proof since I do not understand your dissatisfaction with my argumentation.

>>130819802
Asking for a wedding cake it not shoving dicks in kids faces.

>>130819711
I don't think that people should fear being turned away from public businesses for biological realities. I'm not sure how that is not an argument.

File: 1493236888058.jpg (105KB, 640x648px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x648px

>>130815205
Why are businesses forced to serve people they don't want to? Shouldn't the free market correct itself if that's a problem? If enough of you pillow biters get buttflustered outside of the bedroom and have demonstrations against it maybe you will affect their business enough for them to change their ways. But crying to the courts is BS and you seek to subvert business' rights.

>>130820167
Traps are not gay, they are bi.

>>130815205
Traps are gay.

>>130819711
>It's not an argument, it's a statement.
This.

An argument has the form:

Premise 1
Premise 2
....
Conclusion that follows logically from the premises.

OP's argument could be summed up as:
P1: "Everyone has the right to be served by a business owner"
P2: "Freedom of religion is secondary to all other rights"
C: "Freedom of religion does not guarantee the right to prevent homosexuals from being served by a business owner"

Problems:
P1: Unsound premise. P1 is a negative right. This means that --nobody-- can be interfered with when attempting to be served by any business. So, for instance, an incarcerated convict would have the ETHICAL RIGHT to walk out of prison so he can peruse the starbucks venue of his choice.
P2: Unsound, simply a baseless premise with no justification
Conclusion: Valid, however, based on unsound premeses.

>>130819565
>dat pic

Tell me what's wrong with throwing lesbians off buildings, again?

>>130820226
Nice mental gymnastics, not that I expected different from someone that wants to cry to outlaw everything that hurts your fee fees. If I went to a business and they told me "fuck out of here cracka, we don't serve your kind". I simply take my business elsewhere. Gays PURPOSEFULLY look to play victim by going to businesses they know might have an issue performing a service for them. Eternal victims that are always crying to news outlets or the courts. Get your gay buddies together and don't give those folks business, get your straight friends to not give them business if you feel so strongly about it. Don't go crying to the courts.

>>130819910
>the customer is being discriminated against because of their support for gays
The customer is being discriminated against for asking the bakery to write a message supporting gay marriage, not for their support for gays. Every bakery serves countless customers who support gays. They do so on a daily basis without worry. If they were worried about it, they'd put up a sign on the front door saying "fag-enablers not welcome".

>>130819910
>And allowing marriage and adoption rights for gays will provably lower the rate of STDs in the gay community, which is already happening amongst White gays, but sadly not yet amongst minority gay folks.
Almost no gays get married, they just have this "debate" to stir up controversy. Civil unions already exist for gays in most places, and the gay community is just as promiscuous as ever.

Research has shown that gays average 50 partners, with more than half of partners being single-affair episodes, even in gay-marrage areas.

>>130820365
Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner.

I said that before.

Also I'm pretty sure Starbucks will serve convicts, but um, ok.

The point is comparing gays to people who intentionally do harm to businesses is unfair.

>>130820567
The couple in the Colorado cake case, as well as in most cases, had no idea the baker is Christian or is opposed to gay marriage. There isn't exactly a sign on the bakery that says so. They were not intentionally trying to mess with him for being a Christian when they ordered the cake, they were trying to have a good made in honor of a celebration.

>>130820580
Hundreds of thousands of gays have been married in the past decade.

>>130820530
>Tell me what's wrong with throwing lesbians off buildings, again?
It'll make a mess

>>130819910
You are literally retarded.
Do you understand that you are simply saying the same thing over and over again without explaining anything.

> they should not be penalized for by those who have religious beliefs against them.
WHY NOT?

Here's a sample argument:
I believe that business owners should be able to refuse service to gay people because it is not government's role to tell business owners who they should and shouldn't serve. By doing that, you firstly discourage potential business owners from becoming business owners, from fear of having to carry out a custom which they morally disagree with. This reduces the economic productivity of a country.
Secondly, you are enforcing a government opinion and ideology. The government states that gay people are equal to straight people, and therefore everyone must agree with it or get imprisoned. This enforcement of ideology is fundamentally wrong on all level as it reduces the diversity of opinion and ideologies available in society, which I feel is crucial to a stable society, in having multiple ideologies all present and arguing, even if the majority think one is correct and one is wrong. Because it means that no one ideology can dominate a society without check and therefore lead the society to turmoil.

That's an argument, now you try you degenerate faggot.

>>130819514
>It is more awkward to publicly shame your customers for their biological reality.
No, it's not. That isn't on public record and won't have a lasting effect for decades to come with law students and professors discussing the effects of it on how certain legal cases are handled. Judges won't look to some faggot being refused service when making a ruling. Awkward moments are temporary, legal precedent is permanent.

>Yes, you can get a cake elsewhere, but it is much easier, and more profitable, for the bakery owner to simply provide such a cake.
>If they oppose the message, they could have offered to make a blank cake with no obviously sexual or gay marriage symbology and give the icing to the gay couple to create their own message.
If you can get it elsewhere then why go through the process of federal court to force them to do so? Why should that baker put profit over his beliefs? Why should you bother with some asshole that doesn't want to serve you in the first place?

>I don't see how baking a plain, frosted cake goes against your duties as a Christian. The book says don't have gay sex, not don't make cakes for gays.
So what? What you think about Christianity is irrelevant. The baker doesn't want to serve you on the basis of religious beliefs, that is the heart of the argument. You are attempting to discriminate against this man's religious freedom, his beliefs, by forcing him to serve you.

>>130815205
mormons aren't christians
refusing service is your basic human right
you have the right to refuse patronage as well
the desire for regulatory nanny state is a serious human defect, worse than any perversion you can act out on a pride float.
everyone who deeply desires government control should be avoided at all costs. deeply, deeply sick people.

>posting this nigger shit
It's gonna be a long summer...

>>130820580
>research where Christians enter gay bars

Impossible to research small-town closeted gays. Almost all research on gays having tons of partners is heavily biased, not only towards pre-supposed conclusions by anti-gay Christian researchers, but by only including urban big-city gays in the studies. There are plenty of closeted and small-town gays who have few partners and marriage and adoption will only shore up those numbers.

>>130820789
I believe that it is the government's rule to protect the rights of minority groups when said minority results from an inborn characteristic.

>>130820857
Refusing service is not a basic human right. The government should balance harms so that people have as many rights as possible. Gays do not refuse to serve Christians in making baptismal cakes. The prejudice is one way. Therefore the laws must reflect that one group, without the laws, would oppress the other, and protect the group that is oppressed.

>>130820857
seriously, there is no clearer sign of a evolutionary dead end than the desire to enforce ones own social anxiety on others through bureaucracy. this is literally the most fascist, horrible kind of person possible. even a sociopath has more chance to benefit humanity than a literal government cuckold. i pity you more than victims of famine.

>>130820749
WHAT IS YOUR IQ. TELL ME.
YOU ARE STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THE POINT. YOU ARE NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT.
You are just repeating yourself many different ways.

>Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner.
EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS? WHY DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT.
AND DONT FUCKING SAY THAT GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO SHOPS WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING REFUSED OR IM GOING TO SHOOT MYSELF.

GIVE A (OR MORE IF YOU CAN MANAGE IT) REASON AS TO WHY IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING, FOR ALL OF SOCIETY, IF BUSINESS OWNERS COULDN'T REFUSE GAY PEOPLE

>>130821207
yes it is, dumbfuck. forcing someone to service another against their will is literally slavery. your brain is obviously infected with marx cancer. i hope you die soon so you don't suffer long.

That's illegal.

TO CATER AN LGBT EVENT is another matter.

>>130821018
>I believe that it is the government's rule to protect the rights of minority groups when said minority results from an inborn characteristic.
Ok, there you go, that's a start. Now why is that? Explain yourself.
Give me a reason why the government should protect the ""rights"" of minority groups of an inborn characteristics.

>>130821207
No it shouldn't, you authoritarian cunts want to utilize the govt to strongarm people who don't agree with you and force them to serve you.
You are not owed ANY service from ANY business. How pathetic that you permanent victims always cry to the govt to "correct" something that is working just fine and as intended. I know you are weak and prefer others to take action in your place(hence your love for and reliance on an authoritarian govt) but piss off with this continual victim-hood.

File: gays bad parents.png (70KB, 963x908px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 963x908px

>>130820749
>Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner.
Why?

Is going to starbucks a human right?
>Hundreds of thousands of gays have been married in the past decade.
Even if gay marriage somewhat reduces the health and social problems caused by homosexuality (by reducing on average their ridiculous promiscuity), it would be even greater benefit to ban it entirely. This means less child molestation, less venereal diseases spread among the general population, less money spent by public healthcare on them for sex reassignment or venereal diseases, less children experiencing mental distress caused by confusion or gender dysphoria, more conventional sex = higher population growth, etc.

The question is, what does tolerance of homosexuality provide for society that is a positive? It has many negatives, but no apparent positives. Okay, I can think of one: it provides the opportunity temporary physical pleasure for a small group of individuals. Amazing contribution to society. That sure outweighs all the AIDs cases.

There would also be new issues arisen from allowing gays to have families, pic related. Homosexuality, it turns out, tends to either be a cause or a symptom of some sort of general dysfunction in society.

File: 1496643304748.gif (192KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 300x300px

Always the poor victims, the govt NEEDS to protect these people
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5088/11-times-left-pushed-anti-lgbt-hoaxes-ben-shapiro#

>>130821018
>Almost all research on gays having tons of partners is heavily biased
This is a ridiculous general statement that only acts as an excuse against scientific studies that show the dis-merits of your lifestyle. You must prove to me the validity of this claim.

>>130821207
^ someone tell me how these fucks can't hear themselves? they openly advocate pure insanity, literally slavery, and they're still sure they're the good guys! how!? they're the literal definition of evil. jfc.

>>130821344
>WHAT IS YOUR IQ. TELL ME.
>YOU ARE STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THE POINT. YOU ARE NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT.
JUST SCROLLING BY, and i wanna say, you're a fucking retard lol just by that. there is no way you're a smart person, if youre on 4chan yelling in all caps tell me your IQ

>implying IQ is a legitimate measure of intelligence

stupid britbongs :') see u next revulotinary war, BITCH

File: IMG_5048.png (3MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1242x2208px

>>130815205
Penn and Teller did an amazing episode of Bullshit on this very subject. They argued that even being able to discriminate against people of color should be legal. Because the economy and capitalism will dictate that whatever company DOESNT sell to blacks or gays etc will end up dying out because another company will.

Private businesses should be allowed to do anything they want. Unless they're government ran of course. I even think if a restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking then they should be able to. Not being able to smoke indoors legally killed off many businesses for example. Specifically bars where a large portion smoked cigars.

>>130817825
In all those cases the bakers have already served them / would serve them for different orders. The issue has always been about compulsion, not discrimination. No one should be compelled to do something against their wishes.

>>130821207
>Gays do not refuse to serve Christians in making baptismal cakes.
No, but they should have the right too.

File: 1494470324172.png (347KB, 492x500px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 492x500px

>Watching that video
I have cancer thanks you.
Anyways, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they want.
The caveat is, that the business will lose potential customers in refusing certain people.
You should let businesses do what they normally do and leave them alone.

>>130821344
Government has to balance harms and interests. The Christian who must make a gay wedding cake is simply required to do their job whereas the gay forced to shop at multiple bakeries is burdened due to their biological reality. The government steps in to make sure people are not unduly burdened by their identity and as such that rights are protected for all groups.

Christians can still fire people for being gay if they work for a Church and refuse to allow gays to join a Church or marry in it, they just cannot do so in a non-religious business that is open to the public. Religion is not an excuse for discrimination and discrimination is harmful and creates civil unrest.

>>130821472
To enforce civil order and ensure that people can easily access public goods and services. If some groups cannot shop at X place but others can, I don't see how those businesses can be termed to be open to the public. Again, I am fine with EXPLICITLY religious organizations discriminating against gays.

Do you run a Church? Sure, don't have to hire gays, cannot be forced to perform gay marriages etc.

But this is public businesses and I think public businesses should have to serve customers equally so that no one group is unduly burdened in everyday life.

>>130821566
The New Family Structures Study is a pile of garbage. It's been thoroughly trashed.

You can always count on it to turn up in these threads though.

The research isn't legit, and it's specifically not legit in very obvious ways that a person like Regenerus should have seen that just happen to make it line up with the results Regenerus was being paid to deliver.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/

>>130821697
Well there was one survey that came from gay bars and I don't think that is a representative sample.

>>130821886
Then why did businesses in the 1800s not die out from refusing to serve Blacks?

>>130821876
I dont use IQ either faggot, it was trying to get the point across that this faggot is retarded.
I usually don't care for people who making IQ threads either. I dont actually care about this faggot's IQ.
Why are you literally defending a faggot?

>>130822092
you're evil.
>pls, gods and universal chaos, don't let this one reproduce or find some other way to inflict their evil on innocent children.

>>130822092
No, the govt really doesn't. Authoritarian cunts like you are literally insane and would propagate slavery if it meant others serving the will of gays. Seek mental help.
>washington post
Lmao
>Iff some groups cannot shop at X place but others can, I don't see how those businesses can be termed to be open to the public.
Again, let the market correct it. You are advocating for authoritarian decree that should be at the whim of gays or any other loud group of complainers.

>>130822377
Keep your spam and shit on your own board.

>>130822412
The market will not magically correct it if the numbers of the minority are too small to inhibit the business. Government specifically exists to balance the rights of minority and majority groups and always has.

>>130822092
Good. Now that's an argument. Was that so hard?
Now here's my counterargument
What about a street with 50 cake shops, all doing the same cakes.
And a gay couple happens to walk into one of them.
The owner of that specific cake shop believes that serving one cake to any gay couple means you will spend eternity in hell no matter what. If that owner serves the cake, he will spend the rest of his life dreading the day when he dies and gets sent to hell.

Do you think that that business owner should have to suffer for the rest of their life because the gay couple chose to go in his cake shop first and not in one of the 50 shops across the street or next to this one.

>>130821207
Premise: Refusing service is not a basic human right.
"Refusing service" is a negative right. That means that you are not forced to do something. The opposite is REQUIRING SOMEONE TO PROVIDE A SERVICE. It's unethical to require an individual to provide service despite their own judgement. That is equivalent to servitude.

>The government should balance harms so that people have as many rights as possible.
Retarded utilitarian argument. If 51% of people vote for the right to slavery of 49%, then that is tyranny by majority.

>Gays do not refuse to serve Christians in making baptismal cakes.
False equivalence. Homosexuality is harmful to society. You are upset not at "discrimination" but at social disapproval. Gays are not being persecuted, attacked, they are only being refused indulgence of their harmful lifestyle. Disapproval is the least aggressive form of punishment possible for immoral behavior.

>The prejudice is one way. Therefore the laws must reflect that one group, without the laws, would oppress the other, and protect the group that is oppressed.
The group that is being oppressed is Christianity, as they are denied their right to practice moral behavior by disapproving of homosexuality.

>>130822092
>The New Family Structures Study is a pile of garbage. It's been thoroughly trashed.
Oh lord, you are dumb.

Washington post is a liberal tabloid, not a peer-reviewed scientific source.

>>130822521
See my post above about getting your straight friends involved too. Guess what, the govt. doesn't have any right forcing businesses to provide services to folks if they don't want to. Again you dodge around the fact that you want the govt. to act as an authoritarian arm of gays or other groups. The govt already wields too much authoritarian power and any push for more is simply bullshit and advocated by folks who want to essentially force others into slavery.

So you believe that gay people shouldnt have to go through any burden but the shop owners have to, doing stuff that's against their conscious.

You believe that the lives of gay customers have more values than the religious shop-owners

File: 1494970840306m.jpg (89KB, 1024x1022px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x1022px

>>130815205
When the state forces someone at point of gun, because that's the implicit threat of state forces, to violate their own deeply held personal convictions, the line has been crossed. At this point it isn't about acceptance or tolerance. It's about using STATE FORCE to make those fucking homopobes do what you want. To force them to accept you. There's the line. You blasted right over it. And by doing so You obliterated any moral high ground you might have had. Fuck you.

I'm leaving this thread. OP is retarded.
I don't give a shit if you're gay. Just dont force other people to change their ways to accommodate you.

>>130822570
These arguments were all presented during segregation, and failed though. Your argument is one of separate but equal. Mine is of comparative harms. The harm to a business owner for having to do their job vs. the harm of a person who cannot obtain a good or service due to an inborn trait that they cannot control as well as from them being publicly shamed over it.

Now yes, I would be interested to see what happens if a business owner put out a sign "we do not serve gays" or "no gay marriage cakes" but to my knowledge that hasn't happened and all these cases have resulted from people who just wanted a cake and had no idea about the religious mindset of the bakery coming into it.

So your point is to minimize the imposition of harms, but you still admit that their is harm as if there was only 1 bakery in a small town, than a bakery refusing to serve gays becomes far more problematic.

Nothing in the bible says serving gay people will make you go to hell. Bakeries are not religious organizations. If your religious beliefs require you to harm others, they are no longer protected by the government. I don't think a business owner having to serve gay people harms him as much as the people who are publicly shamed by his or her refusal to offer services as well as their need to then find a subsequent business to purchase their good at. As you have indicated, the harm is multiplied by the rarity of the service offered so in cases where there is only one provider of a service in town, the issue of discrimination grows far more significant and laws are not simply designed only for big cities where there are many similar businesses in operation. I don't think you can prove any signifiant suffering from a bakery owner who is forced to do their job re: gay couples. The bible says not to have gay sex, it doesn't say anything about cakes.

>>130822614
False equivalence. Requiring people to do their job without discrimination is not servitude.

>>130819119
>I think gays deserve the right to be treated fairly
I think they don't. Fuck off.

>>130822614
>>The government should balance harms so that people have as many rights as possible.
>Retarded utilitarian argument. If 51% of people vote for the right to slavery of 49%, then that is tyranny by majority.
I misread that part actually as "as many people should have as many rights as possible", which changes the meaning.

Still despite my error, "having as many rights as possible" is still a terrible idea, essentially anarchy. Social contract: give up some rights in return for some benefit. IE Giving up right to murder in exchange for not being murdered. If we allow all rights (reductio ad absurdum), then we end up with a lawless Mad Max style world.

And still nobody would be forced to make cakes for gays because there would be no rule requiring them to.

>>130823355
>False equivalence. Requiring people to do their job without discrimination is not servitude.
Requiring people to do their job is servitude. Why do you have authority to tell people to work?

A person works voluntarily for compensation. If they feel the work, for whatever possible reason (effort, cost, morality, dignity, etc.) is not worthy of the compensation, they do not do the work.

If you force someone to work in spite of their personal judgement, then that is indeed enforced servitude and unethical.

>>130822825
Did you even read the article. The guy is a Christian who got paid to manipulate survey data to prove a point his employers had in mind before it was ever conducted. The study did not, but implies that it does, compare the outcome of children in gay civilly married homes vs. straight ones. There were 0 gay married couples in the study that raised kids from 0-18. The dataset at best is only about 200 people. The guy got paid to manipulate data, and was influenced by the people paying him, as he was conducting the survey.

>>130822994
Yes, your conscious does not override your duties in a public business. I may hate serving old people because they can't hear and I have to yell WHAT KIND OF CAKE DO YOU WANT, but I still must do it because not serving them would be harmful to them.

customer discrimination is a cost to the business. Lots of restaurants and bars have age limits beyond statutory minimums and dress codes. They deny certain customers, and their money, for business reasons. Some businesses are willing to accept that cost, others aren't. Business owners should not be forced to violate their conscience to run a business

BLACKS CANT HELP BEING BLACK BUT GAYS CAN CHOOSE TO NOT BE GAY

>>130823653
I don't have authority to tell people to work, the government does. They are willing to do their jobs, but only preferentially for certain groups despite being open to the public. That is the issue here. They are not refusing because of effort, cost, morality, dignity, they are refusing out of bigotry thinking they are above the law.

>>130823355
>Nothing in the bible says serving gay people will make you go to hell. Bakeries are not religious organizations. If your religious beliefs require you to harm others, they are no longer protected by the government. I don't think a business owner having to serve gay people harms him as much as the people who are publicly shamed by his or her refusal to offer services as well as their need to then find a subsequent business to purchase their good at. As you have indicated, the harm is multiplied by the rarity of the service offered so in cases where there is only one provider of a service in town, the issue of discrimination grows far more significant and laws are not simply designed only for big cities where there are many similar businesses in operation. I don't think you can prove any signifiant suffering from a bakery owner who is forced to do their job re: gay couples. The bible says not to have gay sex, it doesn't say anything about cakes.
You are upset not at "discrimination" but at social disapproval. Gays are not being persecuted, attacked, they are only being refused indulgence of their harmful lifestyle. Disapproval is the least aggressive form of punishment possible for immoral behavior. You could in fact stop being gay and receive cake. That is the goal of negative punishment.

Also, on a sidenote, don't give me this bullshit that cake is a human right, necessary to life, or that there is no alternative ways of obtaining cake than harassing Christians.

>>130823664
You can look at a person and immediately determine their approximate age. Same with skin color, ethnicity...physical traits.

I can't tell by just looking at someone whether or not they are faggot, which makes it impossible to legally discriminate against them unless I ask them whether or not they are a faggot and they answer in the affirmative.

>>130824079
That literally is persecution though to refuse to do business with people on account of their sexuality.

>>130824180
There are plenty of inborn traits which are not visible. If someone asks for a gay wedding cake it is apparent that they are gay. If you then deny them service, you are doing so because they are gay.

>>130823664
>Did you even read the article.
Friend, you can't just refute a peer-reviewed university study with a link to some tabloid that relies on ad hominems instead of a structured analysis and rebuttal.

>>130823809
>I don't have authority to tell people to work, the government does.
Appeal to force then? "The government has the right to force people to perform labor despite their objections"?

>They are not refusing because of effort, cost, morality, dignity, they are refusing out of bigotry thinking they are above the law.
They absolutely are. They feel that doing such a thing is undignified and immoral. However, this unjust law (laws should be based on morality, not appeal to force) forces them to perform a service against their will. Hence, servitude.

You've given up your guise already. This is nothing more than unapologetic tyranny.

>>130824320
>That literally is persecution though to refuse to do business with people on account of their sexuality.
You've been saying this a lot, but failed to prove it.

>>130824320
It is impossible to legally discriminate against a trait that one cannot see. Faggotry is not immediately visible, and a person could 'act' gay and not be gay, which again makes it legally impossible to discriminate against that person on the basis of sexuality.

You don't seem to get what the courts see as illegal discrimination. Consider Hispanics in the US - they have many different ethnicities and national origins, yet they discriminate against each other constantly. However in the eyes of the law, it is impossible for a Hispanic to discriminate against another hispanic

>>130815205
Make it happen /pol/

https://www.change.org/p/trey-gowdy-funding-for-a-middle-finger-on-the-white-house-lawn

>>130821566
>The question is, what does tolerance of homosexuality provide for society that is a positive?

Idk anon.
If we never had gays throught history, I kinda feel like we'd have an even larger population today. Think about all the gays killed by various religions for being gay?

File: 1497947165116.jpg (132KB, 849x960px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 849x960px

>>130817825
Being black is a sexually now? What is this meme where these two are always compared as equals

>>130815205
Bash any penises and you only bash your own. That is all

>>130824767
When someone says they want a wedding cake for a gay couple and you tell them you won't serve them because your religion is against gays marrying, that is discriminating against them because they are gay.

>>130824643
The study links to a study, not a tabloid. It is definitely a structured analysis and rebuttal that you will never read:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1500085X

Scholars have noted that survey analysis of small subsamples—for example, same-sex parent families—is sensitive to researchers’ analytical decisions, and even small differences in coding can profoundly shape empirical patterns. As an illustration, we reassess the findings of a recent article by Regnerus regarding the implications of being raised by gay and lesbian parents. Taking a close look at the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), we demonstrate the potential for misclassifying a non-negligible number of respondents as having been raised by parents who had a same-sex romantic relationship. We assess the implications of these possible misclassifications, along with other methodological considerations, by reanalyzing the NFSS in seven steps. The reanalysis offers evidence that the empirical patterns showcased in the original Regnerus article are fragile—so fragile that they appear largely a function of these possible misclassifications and other methodological choices. Our replication and reanalysis of Regnerus’s study offer a cautionary illustration of the importance of double checking and critically assessing the implications of measurement and other methodological decisions in our and others’ research.

>>130824958
>I kinda feel like we'd have an even larger population today.
Anal sex doesn't produce children.

If anything, the population would be lower due to more widespread disease.

>>130825013
Being Black is a suspect class, meaning a group of people of shared identity, who often are targeted by discrimination. Gays should be, but have failed to be placed as a suspect class so far by the courts.

>>130825106
Surrogacy. Truvada. Artificial eggs and wombs that come only from males. Created in a lab. Charlie sheen. Zika. Incurable gonorrhea. And throat cancer from pussy fungus

>>130825106
Plenty of gays prior to gay marriage entered unhappy marriages to lesbians or straight women and had kids.

>>130825190
How are you supposed to do this for gays? Gays don't walk around with a sign saying 'GAY' on them. Blacks on the other hand can't shed their skin

>>130815205
Because..........

Wait for it.......

DISCRIMINATION IS TOTALLY LEGAL!

Unless you are being discriminated against by an employer when you are seeking a job or housing, its totally fucking legal and you do it on a daily basis

You discriminate who you will associate with
You discriminate who you will have sex with

A business retains the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all. Additionally, how about we go to Dearborn Michigan and ask them to bake us a gay wedding cake and see what they say

>>130825291
Well, when gays are holding hands with a same-sex partner, it is pretty obvious, and sometimes that results in discrimination. If someone mentions they are gay, it is then known. Sometimes people suspect that others are gay based on their appearance or behavior and then discriminate against them as well.

>>130825429
Michigan does not have state laws protecting sexuality in places of public accommodation. Colorado and Oregon (two places where anti-gay bakers got BTFO by courts), do.

That said, businesses DONT reserve the right to refuse service to you because you are a woman or Black. If they do that, they can be fined or shut down.

>>130825228
>>130825106
meant to mention that too.
as far as churches go kinda feel like in the mideval times they would of killed off a gay mans kid/s.
you know, kill it before it spawns more kinda deal?
could be wrong, probably am, don't care either way cause churches suck.

>>130825197
Wow, those are sure alternatives that have been available throughout human history.

Also, what is the purpose of any of this, when biology provided a far more cost-effective route? All this proves is that expensive and perverted science can manipulate nature, not that any of this is any way productive to mankind as a whole.

>>130825086
>Scholars have noted that survey analysis of small subsamples—for example, same-sex parent families—is sensitive to researchers’ analytical decisions, and even small differences in coding can profoundly shape empirical patterns.
Any "scholar" would know that any survey with honest participants is 100% accurate for the precise group studied.

If the study only took 1 person from the gayest gay bar in town and found that he slept with 1000 men (which isn't uncommon among gays), then the question would still remain:

Why
do
we
let
one
single
person
behave
this
way?.

>>130825190
So you're saying they're lesser than human people or something? A Christian Baker wouldn't bake a cake that says "i love doing Cocaine" if you're paying someone for a task, you don't own them and they can refuse service, you tyrant.

>>130825583
I dont know how you have failed to misunderstand the law so badly, but it is quite amusing.

>>130825668
Majority of research is proven later incorrect:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/20/a-researchers-claim-90-of-medical-research-is-wrong/

>>130825228
>Plenty of gays prior to gay marriage entered unhappy marriages to lesbians or straight women and had kids.
Then it seems like it's not necessary to behave homosexually then.

>>130825719
No, people treat them differently. Speech that is disparaging is not protected by law. People have tried to make bakeries print anti-gay bible verses and then sued them when they wouldn't. The person asking to have the anti-gay bible verses on a cake lost.

>>130815205
Because it is morally correct and our right as citizens

I won't provide service for sodomites, ever

Simple: the Civil Rights Act is retarded. Discrimination is a discriminatory word for the positive process of pattern recognition which is the foundation for human intelligence. Any system aiming to make pattern recognition illegal is unethical, undemocratic and unintelligent. Yes, even if the country becomes majority Muslim and decides to stone you because you're white. Ingroup preference is a positive trait and the West wouldn't be in this current mess if we didn't hand the keys of the kingdom to the kikes.

>>130825851
Sexual behavior is not "necessary" in the sense people die if they don't do it but it certainly reduces their quality of life if their sexual freedoms are restricted.

File: 1495834177063.jpg (70KB, 640x541px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x541px

>>130815205
I wonder if these Mormons were surveyed exclusively in Salt Lake City, Utah and California. Survey Mormons outside of these areas, like Arizona and Idaho, and it will be a completely different story.

>>130825937
>Speech that is disparaging is not protected by law

Except SCOTUS literally just the other day said that Hate speech is protected under the first amendment

so suck a dick you proud gay faggot

>>130815205
Fuck off you bubonic butt pirate

Never forget

>bake the fucking cake

>>130826115
Not in the sense that people can be forced to serve customers asking for hateful messages to be created. Like if I am a baker and I say I won't make a cake that says kill all the gays, or homosexuality is sinful, I am well within my rights and the courts have borne this out time and time again.

File: 1497427320475.jpg (11KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x240px

>>130825937
There's something to be said about a fag who specifically goes to a Christian bakery to taunt them. I wouldn't expect anything else really.

>>130826302
They didn't though. They went to a bakery, not knowing who owned it, and were denied service on account of being gay.

>>130822521
>government specifically exists to balance the rights of minority and majority groups and always has
Objectively false. Government exists to hold the big gun so other cultures with big guns don't kill you. Everything else is secondary.

>>130826064
>Sexual behavior is not "necessary" in the sense people die if they don't do it but it certainly reduces their quality of life if their sexual freedoms are restricted.
I would argue that it increases their quality of life, because their lifespan is increased, they have children and a wife who helps them raise the children.

If the issue is their attitude towards life and nature, then it is their attitude that needs adjusting.

If it's not necessary, and it is harmful, then disallow if. If they mope, then let them mope. I don't see any human rights being violated.

>>130826064
Being an aids riddled diaper wearing degenerate
>High quality of life.

>>130826302
http://www.inquisitr.com/1982669/denver-bakery-wont-be-forced-to-bake-a-cake-with-an-anti-gay-message/

>>130826254
If im forced to bake a cake for gays, why am i not forced to bake a cake for anyone else, mainly those who hate gays?

>>130826400
So they can go to another bakery like a human would.

>>130826064
In a humane society, quality of life ought to take a backseat to direct threats to life. Homosexuality has been the vehicle for AIDS and other diseases, and still claims countless lives, with the average expectancy of an homosexual man being several years lower than a straight man.

This is ignoring the iceberg: incommensurable damage to the social fabric.
Gay acceptance = more gays = more diseases = more mortality
Gay acceptance = less kids = less investment in the future = suicidal social policies

>>130826556
Right here, your blaring double standard

Anti-Gay -> no cake for you
Pro-Gay -> Bake the cake you fucking shitlord

Now, when people hate you, dont be surprised

>>130826433
And gays can have children without a wife and a husband can help raise the children. I would say the anti-gay bakers are the ones who need an attitude adjustment for thinking they are above the law and don't need to do their jobs because of petty disagreements on how their customers live.

>>130826433
To elaborate further, it is ethical to enforce punishment towards people, to cause them to adjust their behavior towards a way that is a benefit to society. That is why heroin junkies are punished. If gays were punished too, then it would be a net benefit for society. The behavior is voluntary, not necessary to human life, therefore, it is not a human right, therefore, the homosexuals can refrain from indulging in it, and not suffer punishment.

>>130823809
>the government has the authority to tell people to work
not without significant extenuating circumstances.

>>130815205
>before you say that businesses can choose to serve anyone, that is not true

bullshit. a private business is the creation of it's owner. a private business is not required to abide by any social standards, as long as the customers aren't physically harmed.

what would you say if pork-kin went into a jewish or muslim shop and demanded they be served bacon? would those shops be forced to offer pork products?

>>130826685
Yea i mean, god forbid those pesky faggot customers find another bakery to make the phallus cake that shoots rainbow colored jizz when you slice in to it

>>130826575
see

>>130826556

>>130826577
Why should they be given an undue burden that a straight couple would not have?

>>130826578
Allowing gays to marry and adopt will only reduce disease by encouraging monogamy and long term commitment. Christians often have this double standard that gays live in promiscuous sin when they have been the ones to condemn gays to such a life by denying them the opportunity to start a family for so long.

>>130826673
Its not a double standard though and courts have ruled this. If you want to deny gay people services, incorporate your business privately.

>>130826816
They didn't ask for a sexually explicit cake.

>>130826685
>I would say the anti-gay bakers are the ones who need an attitude adjustment for thinking they are above the law and don't need to do their jobs because of petty disagreements on how their customers live.
Your appeal to force is absolutely ridiculously shameless. See >>130824643

>>130826774
It is a business open to the public. Churches have NEVER been forced to marry gay couples ever.

>>130826851
>Its not a double standard though and courts have ruled this

12/10 for the gymnastics

>>130815205
How about people keep how and who they fuck in their private lives where that shit belongs.

>>130826896
Also, there is a difference between law and ethics. A law can be unethical. A person can break a law in an ethical manner (civil disobedience).

>>130826880
thats your opinion

>>130826896
My appeal is to comparative harms. A gay couple who cannot get service in a bakery is more likely to be denied medical treatment for being gay if the status quo is that homosexuals can be denied service by businesses serving the public. The concern is not largely over cakes, but being able to deny gay people service for their sexuality. If a doctor refused to treat a sick gay person then the magnified comparative harms issue becomes greater. The moral penalty for having to serve all-comers despite religious objections vs. the real penalty of not being able to obtain needed services due to inborn traits.

>>130827161
Hippocratic oath prevents this.

Next.

>>130826984
You don't think courts have been proposed by Christian lawyers that this is a double standard? You doubt they have ever had to wrestle with that argument?

>>130827045
And when we tried to deny service to Blacks they rioted. Civil order is best preserved by equal treatment.

>>130826920

what the fuck does that matter? what church isn't open to the public?

your argument is weak, faggot.

>>130827161
well, thankfully, we can just discriminate based on political affiliation then.

I can safely assume that most fags are liberals, ergo, I will refuse service to Democrats.

Checkmate fag

>>130827235
Not for a pharmacist refusing to dispense anti-HIV pills to a gay man.

>>130827293
i forgot that there's a single pharmacist in existence.

>>130826920

we are working on a new federal law that states, as long as competition exists for a business, meaning as long as there's an option to go elsewhere, the business can refuse service to anyone. and it will pass.

suck it fag.

>>130827254
Churches are not considered public accommodations. They are ALL privately owned and operated and not open for just any person to receive all their services.

>>130827283
I would be fine with that. I voted Trump.

>>130827161
You making a choice with a negative outcome eg, being overweight, gay, a drug user, should be your responsibility.

>>130827372
Certainly a few conservative states are trying to pass such laws but they will be BTFO by federal courts. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

>>130827161
Being gay is not inborn. The very premise is ridiculous, as it is a dysgenic trait that would only reduce the chances of having children and would be selected against and bred out. Even if it did exist, there is no reason to indulge it when it can be corrected environmentally, see: >>130825228

Also,
See: >>130826433
>>130826686

"It makes me feel bad not to penetrate rectums" is hardly a human rights violation.

>>130827457
how is this "seperate but equal"?

>>130827415
Being gay is a neutral dimension. Being a woman means you are more likely to get breast cancer but that doesn't somehow make cancer your fault.

>>130827498
Being gay is absolutely inborn. Why would millions of people choose to be gay?

>>130827457

egalitarianism is dead. if anything we're headed fast into segregation.

dont be surprised if the US splits into several nationlets very soon.

>>130815205
Mormons are cucks and fags and have always been.

>>130827380
>I would be fine with that. I voted Trump.
Yea, no you didnt, but you can say that and know that you cant prove it and nobody else can prove you didnt

>>130815205
because you make people go against thier religious beliefs and make a big fuss about it. Just go somewhere that will do it for you instead of fucking with christians all the time. this is why you get a pushback tolerance isnt enough, you want the government to attack christian family values because you dont agree with them personally.

>>130827553

because kids are stupid and think it's 'cool'.

at most being a fag is hormonal, it is absolutely not genetic.

>>130827521
Because you are holding gays to different standards than straight people (separate) while claiming you are treating them equally by offering them a burden and an option to gain services elsewhere if initially refused. All these arguments were tried and failed during the Civil Rights era against Blacks, do you really think they will last forever against gays?

>>130823809
They are refusing because of a religious objection. Gays are going to get a wake up call when their made up rights clash in court with religious freedoms which are explicitly stated in the constitution.

Also
>I don't have authority to tell people to work, the government does.
Is a perfect encapsulation of leftist delusion. Thanks for that.

>>130827531
Being a woman isn't a choice no matter how short you cut your dick off too.

>>130827553
>Why would millions of people choose to be gay?
To permanently place them as members of the victim/oppressed class and reap all the benefits associated with it

>>130827354
Eh senpai you replied before me.

The horror scenario of "being denied healthcare" is a ridiculous appeal to emotion.

I do have a problem with places discriminating ervices based on religious backgrounds, though, but for a different reason.

I am staunchly opposed to child genital mutilation and if we set the precedent that Christians can opt to not serve gays then legally the (((lawyers))) can justify peepee and pusspuss chopping.

>>130827611
I am a registered Republican. I mean you could based on leaked voter data but that would be doxxing.

>>130827651
Most kids know if they are gay or not by the time of puberty. Plenty of traits are fixed at birth but only become apparent by puberty. Sexual experimentation of a homosexual sort where the person later becomes heterosexual does not somehow deny the biological reality of homosexuality.

>>130827662
see what I mean. tolerance isnt enough for you anymore. you want laws and restrictions on Christians. Just leave people alone.

>>130827662
>holding gays to a seperate standard than straight people.
False. I walk into a christian bakery, and ask them to make me a cake with a loli porn image on it. They refuse.

Am I being discriminated against? Or should i just go to a sex novelty bakery and get my stuff done there?

>>130827553
I agree that they made the choice to be gay, a poor decision but I respect their free choice.

>>130827699
Read the court decisions for Lawrence v. Texas and others. Religious freedom ends when it starts restricting the rights of others.

>>130827553
Conditioning. Many gays felt weak and unmanly at a young age, and began to compare themselves to women and envision themselves as feminine. Or they saw boys who were admired by their peers and began to admire them in a way that was inappropriate. In general, a consequence of confusion at a vulnerable time.

>>130827457
Everything in nature is unequal. It is ridiculous to think that rabbit and a wolf are as intelligent or as physically strong as one another, or even that two wolves in the same pack are as strong or intelligent as eachother. There is always a superior and an inferior, and that is the very principle that all dual-sexed life on Earth lives by, whether they like it or not, because competition for reproduction is built on the principle of selection of the fittest for procreation.

The equality cult is a cancer of western society, and certainly will not stand the test of time. Either the west will awaken and remove it, or the west will be destroyed externally and have it removed from them.

>>130827855
There is no gay gene.

Gay is literally a mental deficiency or it is a choice.

Since the NORMAL human existence is to brees, gays are either choosing to ignore that for hedonism OR are mentally defective.

That's the actual gay dichotomy.

Does that mean they should be shit on and persecuted? No.

Should they in any way be lauded or put on a pedestal? Absolutely not.

>>130827855
>I am a registered Republican. I mean you could based on leaked voter data but that would be doxxing.

Again, that doesnt prove anything. I can register democrat and still ask for a bipartisan ballot. There is no way to prove your claims unless you dox yourself. You arent going to do that

Either way, you are a RINO at most. The values and ideals you are espousing have nothing to do with personal freedom and liberty and instead advocate an oppressive governmental overreach in to the professional lives of people to force them to engage in activity that strongly contradicts a deeply held religious belief

>>130827745
In many countries gays are killed for being gay. I am pretty sure they would not choose this.

>>130827886
Laws must be facially neutral in terms of religion. The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision explored this in greater depth and held that anti-discrimination laws are neutral in terms of their application towards religious people and therefore do not violate the 1st amendment.

>>130827949
Then they are denying it because you have requested an obscenity which is not protected by the 1st amendment.

>>130827989

that'll be revisited once ginsburg and breyer are out of the supreme court by 2018.

kennedy is out within 2 weeks.

yes trump is getting FOUR court picks in his first term.

>>130828169
>In many countries gays are killed for being gay. I am pretty sure they would not choose this.

yea, the muslim ones

>>130828094
Or it is a mutation of the X chromosome activated by the hormonal womb environment.

When did you choose to be straight?

>>130828100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

>>130828100

also

should they be able to guilt a business into non existence when they can simply go down the street to get services elsewhere?

>>130828100
>>130828094
I forget the statistics but isn't it like 90% of gays get over the fad by the time they're ready to marry. It's like a girl who rides dick for ten years after 18 then suddenly wants a husband and family.

>>130828169
Obscenity is defined as "i know it when i see it."

So, the christian bakery, knows obscenity when it sees it, and both cakes are obscene. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>>130828267
Or is it maybe a parasite?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3515034/

>>130815205
No muslims included in this survey...

Wonder why?

>>130828169
You can refuse service to anyone you want. thats part of a free market and the right of the owners. you cant force anyone to do anything for you. you are not a special protected class of people. There a plenty of shops that wont refuse service to you. you just get off on fucking with good people.

>>130827989
>The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment is illegitimate and immoral. Lawrence v. TX appears to have had nothing to do with religious freedom at all.

>>130828267
>When did you choose to be straight?

being straight is normal. no choice needed.

when did you choose that 2+2=4?

File: equality_.jpg (87KB, 600x754px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x754px

>>130828267
>Or it is a mutation of the X chromosome activated by the hormonal womb environment.
>When did you choose to be straight?
I never chose to be straight, it is the natural and default state for life.

And once again, why should I indulge a deviant, mutated behavior that is harmful to life and society?

There is no equality. "Equality" (or rather, rights and privileges) for one group WILL be inherently oppressive to another. Gays claim to want equality, but what they want is oppression for Christians.

Why should Christianity be oppressed by gays? Homosexuality is a net harm on society. You still have not addressed this, perhaps because you know it is true. Gays are more diseased, more dysfunctional, more often child molesters, more suicidal, lower life expectancy, etc.

Christianity, on the other hand, is the glue that has held together western civilization for hundreds of years, and encourages moral behavior. For instance, studies show that religious people are more likely to give to charity.

So between the two groups, ONE must be favored. The favored group MUST be the one that benefits society, not harms it.

>>130828400
Toxoplasmosis primarily affects those who are already immunocompromised. If somehow it were strong enough to turn healthy adults gay, I think we would have heard a bit more about it.

>>130828391
That would be a novel argument to declare gay wedding cakes obscene but then it would default to that accepted community standards rule and judging by the new data I posted, most people approve of gay marriage.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/15/new-poll-reveals-64-percent-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/22087646/

According to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, 64 percent of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal. This is up from 61 percent in 2016, and marks the highest nationwide approval rating for gay marriage -- up from 27 percent in 1996 when Gallup began tracking the trend.

>>130828536
Civil Rights Act disagrees.

>>130828865
I have addressed this. Allowing gays to marry and adopt will reduce their disease burden.

Studies have also shown gays allowed to marry have better health outcomes.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20170413/Study-finds-positive-health-outcomes-among-married-LGBT-couples.aspx

>>130815205

Fuck of kike america is a christian nation

>>130828875
>community standards
Grab a whole bunch of deeply christian bakers, a community if you will, and ask them their standards please. Wonder what will happen?

also
>2017
>(((polls)))

>>130828875
When pollsters asked Americans last year how they would identify on the Kinsey Scale—a six point rating spanning from “exclusively homosexual” to “exclusively heterosexual”—about a third of millennials pointed somewhere in the “non-binary” middle, compared to about 8% of people over the age of 45.

Where were you when you learned that without the encouragement of the leftists, most young people who consider themselves bisexual will grow out of it and be straight adults

>>130828875
>those who are already immunocompromised

thats the majority of Americans. this entire nation is sick because they dont listen to AJ or buy his supplements. also they all eat estrogen filled garbage.

>>130827989
What rights are being restricted? I can't seem to find any. The right to force people to make you cakes is not in the constitution but the right to religious freedom is.

>tfw the gays trying to force priests to marry them will be the straw that breaks the camels back and all civil rights era legislation will be declared unconstitutional in your lifetime.

>>130818682
>The government telling business who they must serve is every bit as tyrannical as the government telling businesses who they must not serve, as was the case with Jim Crow laws.
Absolutely this.

I know many owners who serve despicable people like faggots simple because it's more profit. Faggots get bothered that someone doesn't care that much about money. Next thing you know they'll advocate for communism against capitalism, despite the latter helping them.

>The price of liberty is people getting to do things you don't like.
The modern (((liberals))) do not understand nor advocate for liberty.

>>130829246
Ah you are forgetting the little known 69th amendment to the LGBTQ+IAA lexicon of "hopeful amendments" that says:

"Gays have a right to cake, whether it be phallus shaped or rainbow colored"

>>130828944
ya well people can refuse service based on other factors. and it truly is a non issue. I mean if you were being refused service by entire communities then sure some restrictions might be in order but thats not the case.

>>130829118
That's just the standard I believe Ginsburg maybe set for how you judge obscenity. Community I believe in this context is a shorthand for how a minority group is viewed by a majority group, not how a minority group is viewed by another minority group.

>>130829201
So you have data that many young people don't consider themselves exclusively gay or straight, but none indicating that such individuals will confirm to an exclusively heterosexual identity as adults.

>>130829236
No it is primarily small kids and those with HIV and other immune diseases. If toxoplasmosis actually had the power to turn healthy adults gay, I'm sure that would be more researched. If you are somehow claiming that all gays are that way become of this, that is a farcical claim.

>>130829246
Gays. in Lawrence vs. Texas they had been told private sexual conduct was illegal, and the courts ruled against that based on 14th amendment protections.

Priests have NEVER been forced to marry gays.

>>130830323
so now you're openly arguing for the tyranny of the majority? Isn't that what you are trying to prevent?

>>130830442
No I am arguing that judicial standards reflect changing views of the majority. A religious minority should not dictate, however, what other minorities can do when that minority is not interacting with the religious minority under the confines of an explicitly religious space. If you want to deny gays stuff as part of your religion, fine, but when such behavior carries over to a public sphere, and on top of that, a majority of the public disapproves of the conduct of said religious minority, then the courts have a right to step in and uphold the rights of the minority group (homosexuals).

>>130830672
>if you want to deny gays stuff as part of your religion fine.
But that's explicitly what you're arguing against. A business owned by a deeply religious person is explicitly religious. And all you're saying is "yes i support the tyranny of the majority against a religious minority".

Can we go kill all muslims now? What about jews?

>>130831601
The business is not religious in nature. If it was a bakery attached to a Catholic church and staffed by nuns, they absolutely have the right to refuse to make gay wedding cakes.

>>130831681
>not religious in nature
It's run by religious people that refuse to make items against their religion. That's religious in nature. You do not have the right to compel other's labor. The state doesn't either.

>>130831818
It is open to the public and it is not a religious business. Nothing about a bakery is religious. Nothing about baking cakes is religious. If the people baking them are ordained ministers, perhaps that would be different if they were acting under a ministerial obligation, but this is not that. This is everyday citizens trying to do harm to others under the guise of religion.

>>130815205
It's not
Right to deny service is a law and it hasn't been changed
Unfortunately liberals like to pretend it doesn't exist and make news laws to counteract it or just put the people who exercise it out of business

>>130832019
Which law says you have the right to deny service for any reason?

>>130831681
businesses are run by a human being retard

it's pretty hard to understand that when you've done nothing with your life

what you're saying is that the law should force you to support what goes against your religion, or you're not allowed to own a business

also fuck the civil rights act, it's a violation of freedom of association, freedom of contract, and routinely abuses equal protection

kill yourself

>>130832002
So i can walk into a muslim bakery and force them to make me a cake with an image of muhammad on it, even though that makes them an apostate?

>>130832111
Yes but public accommodations are held to different standards than private religious businesses by the law.

Courts have ruled that kids can be forced to get blood transfusions even if the parents deem it against their religion.

>>130832112
Well no because the image of Muhammad has nothing to with being gay and everything to do with you trying to make them create hateful speech.

As I linked earlier, there have been anti-gay crusaders who have tried to force bakeries to make cakes with anti-gay messages and they have lost in court:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.

On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."

Marjorie Silva, the owner of the bakery, told Jack that she would make him the bible-shaped cakes, but would not decorate them with the biblical verses and the image of the groomsmen that he requested. Instead, she offered to provide him with icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever messages he wished on the cakes.

Silva told the civil rights agency that she also told Jack her bakery "does not discriminate" and "accept[s] all humans."

>>130832442
>courts have ruled
the law in this country has been destroyed, courts are worse than they were in england when we rejected them

and I'm well aware of what the law is, I'm a lawyer

kill yourself

>>130832442
>nothing to do with being gay
Yeah, we're talking about going against people's core religious beliefs. There's nothing inherently hateful about Muhammad. And, as a deeply christian baker, which is a minority as you said, the minority beliefs of one minority should be parsed against the community. More people here support Christians than islam. Therefore they should be forced to make the Muhammad cake. Just like, according to your logic, I should be forced to make a gay cake.

>not being forced to make anti-gay cakes but forced to make pro gay cakes

You're blatantly enforcing a double standard against christians. Why do you hate christians so much? Should muslims be forced to make gay cakes, which is another action that would make them apostates?

>>130832944
If your core religious beliefs involve needing to harm others, than a secular legal system has to weigh your desires, with those of others.

The standard is not against Christians, it is against those seeking to make cakes with hateful messages. There is no law against bakers refusing to make hateful cakes.

Yes, Muslims should be forced to make gay wedding cakes.

>>130833151
>muslims should be forced to make gay wedding cakes
Okay, so in your ideal society, we can literally STEAL the religion from people and get them killed by their neighbors. You may want to re-evaluate your premises.

>>130815205
This LGBT baloney only hurts a society

please at least act straight

>>130833233
I wouldn't allow their neighbors to kill them and would prosecute them vigorously if they tried.

>>130833580
They'll still get killed. Muslims have a thing with murdering people they don't like, no matter the consequences. But it's okay in your world for the government to forcibly take people's religion away from them. To force them to violate their most held core beliefs, and threaten their lives.

You are a tyrant, you should probably aknowledge that.

>>130833759
You can't make laws about theoretical crimes.

>>130833825
>theoretical crimes
What theoretical crime? An overwhelming majority of muslims believe the penalty for apostasy is death. You want people to be able to make muslims apostates. This is pretty clear cut friendo. Acknowledge the sickness in your beliefs.

>>130833825
>yelling fire in a crowded theater

>>130815205
Don't give a fuck about the Law faggot. Your non-existent butt babies aren't gonna pay Caesar his coin, or provide the ample pile of bodies for the military or police.

Your "rights" movement is a historical, anomalous blip on history's radar screen, that's going to be crushed between a rock(Islam) and a hard place(any Christian Fascists who grows the balls, not to let you use their children as your personal concubines).

>>130834016
Your argument is potatoes.

File: gay2.jpg (63KB, 580x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 580x720px

>>130834080

>>130834216
You're gonna have to do better than that. Please point out the flaws, and how forcing people to make cakes that violate their religion is a good thing.

>>130815205
Private property by its very definition gives the right for the owner to use it as he sees fit, i.e. the right to discriminate. As private property owners, they have the right to refuse you if you are a homosexual if they so wish.

Forcing the state to intervene in businesses because they refused to serve you is what needs to be doneaway with.

File: Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-1.43.53-PM.png (983KB, 807x674px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 807x674px

>>130834246
Yeah...so innocent

File: transfaggotry.jpg (54KB, 634x384px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 634x384px

>>130834246
See them pass laws to teach gay anal sex in 3rd grade sex ed.
Hear them strip the rights of Religious people everywhere without regard
watch them flip the genitals of 8 year old boys inside out.

you people are truly sickening.

>>130815205
Find another business that will accept your patronage.
It isn't difficult

>>130834772
Bakers do their job.

It isn't difficult.

>>130820226
There is only straight and gay. No in between. >>130835193
Go be gay somewhere else fagot

>>130835193
>people should be forced to do a job
You should be forced out of society if that's what you think.

>>130834246
Who exactly are you appealing to? This isn't facebook faggot.

Maybe if you fags didn't plough each other in the ass and shoot up for chemsex, your plague addled minds wouldn't believe normie democrat memes > The centre of disease control telling you that there's a real problem.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

Even at 6 times more transmission rates via anal vs vaginal, it STILL doesn't compensate for the 55%. The fact is you're just deviants who get a thrill from perversion, and will tell any lie to cloud this from public attention.

LGBTQPWERYUIOASDFHJKZXCVNM

>>130835440
Disease rates amongst White gays are plummeting. They will fall further now that equal marriage and adoption are in force nationwide.

File: 1498049308853m.jpg (59KB, 1024x454px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1024x454px

>>130815205
>The Civil Rights Act means you cannot refuse service for a variety of grounds, including sex, religion, race, or national origin.
And this is one of the reasons that America is not a free country, but a soft tyranny. This essentially states that coerced interaction/labor (also known as slavery) is OK under certain circumstances.

>>130835600
You are definitely free to not work but if your business is open to the public you cannot deny some people service because you don't like what you believe their identity stands for.

>>130835193
>slaves do their job, it isn't that difficult
literally (you) right now, but you're too dumb and myopic to see it

>>130815205
Maybe you should keep your faggotry to yourself and stop bothering people, you miserable little worm.

>>130835193
Don't have butt sex

It isn't that difficult

File: IMG_20170621_144732.jpg (47KB, 568x1055px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 568x1055px

>>130815205

>>130835597
>WILL TELL ANY LIE TO CLOUD THIS FROM PUBLIC ATTENTION.

>>130815205
Why did you push to change the definition of marriage? Start acting to reverse that and I might start thinking about having some sympathy for gay politics again.

>>130835734

Bullshit.

>>130835597
Did you pull that out of your semen soaked asshole?

>>130835734
Says you and the federal govt. Says not a basic understanding of ethics and private property rights. Simply saying "Slavery is legal therefore you are my slave" is not an argument in favor of slavery. The whole slavery part kind of preempts the "this is how things are done" part in terms of moral analysis.

>>130817238
>I think it's wrong

Well I feel it is right... so fuck you and your feelz. Now fuck off and suck a Dick

Sage this ignorant cunt

>>130815205
So if I'm forced to sell you a good or service, can I force you to buy my good or service?

>>130836282
No

Stop acting gay and no on will know.

>>130836339
Seems pretty one sided to me. Aren't you people all about fairness and equity and shit?

>>130835597
>You faggots literally TRY to get AIDS....

Inb4 uh uhhhh that's not true... fuck off bugchaser

>>130835734


children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

hey faggot you are doing exactly what we thought you would when given rights to adopt children. you people shouldnt even be near kids.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-21 at 12.06.38 PM.png (1MB, 1276x1250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1276x1250px

>>130836527
Stop telling people you hate gays and nobody will know.

>>130836600
Yeah but equity doesn't mean that one side gets to dictate special rules based on religious beliefs for use in a secular business. Want to discriminate against gays? Incorporate your business privately, or as a Church.

>>130836679
#notallgays

White gays have a lot less AIDS than Black gays and the numbers are going down because more and more gays are married and have kids now.

>>130836730
I don't take much stock into meme identities like pansexual. Being open to having same-sex relationships is different than actually engaging in a predominant lifelong pattern of them.

>>130836915
Stop acting like a fag, no one will know you're gay, thus no business will refuse you.

>>130836915
no you are rasing homosexuals almost exclusively. you are corrupting the children. its your rights not the religious that should have their rights stripped. but you keep pushing. and you all wonder why people are pushing back. keep it up though its going to be your undoing.

>>130836915
Why you no want tall gays faggot?

>>130836915
But could a gay bakery force a Mormon couple to buy one of their wedding cakes?

>>130837425
>fuck off pushing you Fuck ass discord

>>130837439
No you cannot force someone to buy a cake, only that they have to make cakes for everybody who wants one.

>>130837605
>go to buy car
>don't have said car
>but I want one

So car manufacture is obligated to make one bc you want one?

>>130837884
The people who want gay wedding cakes can afford them. Cost is not the issue.

>>130838025
I can afford said car

>>130838366
The dealership is not denying you a car based on an inherent characteristic like being gay.

>>130838443
Mods get off your ass and 404 this faggot

>>130838625
But I want one

>>130837605
>>130837884
>>130838625
Since there are morbidly obese people that literally cannot fit into one car seat, are car manufacturers obligated to provide cars that have obese seating?

>>130838825
Not obligated, forced.

>>130838716
too bad

>>130838825
this is dealing with public businesses that have a storefront refusing to provide service to certain types of customers. fat is not a protected class.

>>130838947
EXACTLY! Too bad your faggot ass wants my cake. I don't want to make one for you. Your feelings do not trump my feelings nor do they dictate my actions. Fuck off and buy your cake for your illegal marriage elsewhere

>>130838947
That's kind of fatophobic.
Why are gay people a "protected class" and not fat people?
What is this list of "protected classes" and "unprotected classes" that good and services can and cannot be forced to be provided for?

>>130839462
White Heterosexual Christian male is unprotected

If I as a gay man, enter a business and realize they don't share my points of view, or are from certain religion that I don't like, and then leave the business building because of it and made no transactions, should I be forced to go back there and buy what they sell cause they feel discriminated?

>>130839399
Your situation dealt with people wanting a paid service for free. That is different.

>muh false equivalency

please play again though.

>>130839575
male is protected, Christian is protected under the 1964 CRA.

>>130839693
Nope, lawsuits against hateful bigots are optional!

>>130840038
>free?

Who said anything about free? Faggot and can't read? KYS

>>130840038
Why aren't heterosexuals protected?

>>130815205
fuck you gay nigger with aids, learn the difference between public and private businesses.

>>130840327
because sexual orientation is not listed explicitly as a protected class by the CRA. Should courts rule that sex covers sexuality, that will change.

>>130825086
>When someone says they want a wedding cake for a gay couple and you tell them you won't serve them because your religion is against gays marrying, that is discriminating against them because they are gay.
You don't get to tell businesses what services they offer.
Consider the following:
>homosexual pornography studio makes only homo videos
>a hetero porn producer says he will compensate the homo porn studio for filming a hetero porn
>studio says "sorry we dont do that"
IS IT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SEXUALITY?
no. that is just what the business offers. the faggot will gladly film some poz'd scat fetish anal prolapse smut for the hetero producer who pays for it, but not straight porn.

i put it in terms of genitals and smut since that's what you base your identity around and i figure you'll understand it easier than those generalities like "arguing" which you had to learn in this thread.

>>130815205
>dude fuck free trade when they refuse lmao

>appeal to human rights
>which exist because muh human rights

>>130815205
Does the Civil Rights Act apply to LGBT folks? If so, how did that happen?

>>130844712
No it only applies to sex federally but one court, the 7th circuit has ruled that the CRA's coverage of sex does include sexuality.

>>130820749
>Everyone who doesn't harm a business has the right to be served by a business owner.
What is freedom of association
>Durr hurr u looseey dat rite wun u wun a bidness
Kys statist cuck

>>130815205
>you cannot refuse service for a variety of grounds, including sex, religion, race, or national origin.
I can refuse to serve you if I think you're a prick.

>>130815205
The civil rights act is a fine example of the little legislation swallowing the big.

People should be able to refuse service for any or no reason

File: Untitled.png (104KB, 553x243px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 553x243px

There is only one motive why I hate fags

>>130851990
WOO HOO 300!