• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

What a Good Democrat Christian Woman

Vis said:
And get a reality TV show
Click to expand...

but she would never get the reality show without all of the bugaboo that has been made. She'd be the nobody she was before this.
 
ark steel said:
but she would never get the reality show without all of the bugaboo that has been made. She'd be the nobody she was before this.
Click to expand...

She could join Huckabee's ticket.
 
Vis said:
What rights has Davis lost? When gay marriage wasn't legal, it wasn't her right to stop it, it was the state of the law. Now that's it's legal, whence comes her "right" to try to stop it? Her right is to not enter a gay marriage on her 5th or subsequent marriages.
Click to expand...

You do not see religious persecution going on in this country? Democrat Kim Davis aside?

A baker in Colorado cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding, but a gay bakery in the same state can refuse to make a cake with Christian scripture, as one of many examples?

Please :)
 
Tim Steelersfan said:
You do not see religious persecution going on in this country? Democrat Kim Davis aside?

A baker in Colorado cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding, but a gay bakery in the same state can refuse to make a cake with Christian scripture, as one of many examples?

Please :)
Click to expand...

Can you not see the difference between refusing content and refusing a class of people?
 
Vis said:
Can you not see the difference between refusing content and refusing a class of people?
Click to expand...

I don't.

But then I am of the opinion that private individuals have a right to discriminate as an extension of their right to free associate. I think this woman as a public official can't in the capacity of her job.
 
Serious question here....how can a state grant a marriage license to people who are not residents of that state?
 
ark steel said:
His claim is that the couple spent some time finding someone who wouldn't rather than going to someone they KNEW would do it. Sounds like targeting to me. Unless you dispute his premise.
Click to expand...

Almost........profiling?

Vis said:
Like sitting at the counter of the diner that won't serve your kind when you can eat elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not even close.

Vis said:
Can you not see the difference between refusing content and refusing content that represents a class of people?
Click to expand...

Ya meant.....
 
DBS1970 said:
I don't.

But then I am of the opinion that private individuals have a right to discriminate as an extension of their right to free associate. I think this woman as a public official can't in the capacity of her job.
Click to expand...

If a customer says I want you to make me the same cake you made the last customer and the baker says no because of who you are it's bad. If the customer says i want you to put these words on it and the baker says I'll make you the cake and I'll give you the frosting and tools to write whatever you want on this but I won't write those words (which is what I believed happened), it's not bad. The baker didn't refuse the Christian he refused the words. Can't discriminate against words.

The problem with your position is it doesn't account the fact that business in a public market aren't private in their public dealings. This was decided decades ago against all the "Whites only" businesses.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Vis.

This isn't about a gay couple wanting a cake with a topping showing one guy bent over in his best transvestite outfit and his "groom" naked with an erection. If a cake maker said "I won't do that", that's not discrimination.

But this cake maker refused to sell this gay couple ANY cake. He refused to sell them even the most plain, cheapest cake on the menu.

That IS discrimination.
 
12020027_933632226676068_7157012345279856747_n.jpg
 
Tibs said:
12020027_933632226676068_7157012345279856747_n.jpg
Click to expand...

The difference between the two.....in a Democracy, if you don't like what Huckabee says, you don't vote for him. He is definitely entitled to his opinion.
With Chowderhead, if you don't like what he says, he'll form an army to force it on you. You are only entitled to your opinion if it agrees with him, and the penalty for differing opinions may be death.
 
hamster said:
The difference between the two.....in a Democracy, if you don't like what Huckabee says, you don't vote for him. He is definitely entitled to his opinion.
With Chowderhead, if you don't like what he says, he'll form an army to force it on you. You are only entitled to your opinion if it agrees with him, and the penalty for differing opinions may be death.
Click to expand...

Until they say God disagrees with the vote. If they can ignore the Courts, why not?
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/rach...or-not-issuing-gun-permits-n2048763/page/full

Contrast this with Cathy Lanier, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” nothing required by law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits, although notably he did not send Lanier to jail for contempt.

Similarly, county sheriffs in California had been denying concealed weapons permits to applicants who failed to show a need beyond self-defense. Last November, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the sheriffs were violating the law. None of those sheriffs were sent to jail, despite the fact that people around the country have died unable to obtain a permit to carry concealed.
Click to expand...
 
Vis said:
If a customer says I want you to make me the same cake you made the last customer and the baker says no because of who you are it's bad. If the customer says i want you to put these words on it and the baker says I'll make you the cake and I'll give you the frosting and tools to write whatever you want on this but I won't write those words (which is what I believed happened), it's not bad. The baker didn't refuse the Christian he refused the words. Can't discriminate against words.

The problem with your position is it doesn't account the fact that business in a public market aren't private in their public dealings. This was decided decades ago against all the "Whites only" businesses.
Click to expand...

The business is indeed a private entity. We the people have allowed the public to usurp our natural rights.

But tell me why is it bad for the proprietor of a business to tell another individual that he won't do business with them based on who they are? Did I miss something and we all became serfs unable to travel? Is there something stopping the person refused service from going down the street to another establishment who will take their business? Would you have any qualms about a black owned Barbeque Restaurant refusing to cater a KluKKer rally? Would you be okay with a Jewish floral shop telling a neo-Nazi group they would not provide an arrangement for Hitlers Birthday?
 
DBS1970 said:
The business is indeed a private entity. We the people have allowed the public to usurp our natural rights.

But tell me why is it bad for the proprietor of a business to tell another individual that he won't do business with them based on who they are? Did I miss something and we all became serfs unable to travel? Is there something stopping the person refused service from going down the street to another establishment who will take their business? Would you have any qualms about a black owned Barbeque Restaurant refusing to cater a KluKKer rally? Would you be okay with a Jewish floral shop telling a neo-Nazi group they would not provide an arrangement for Hitlers Birthday?
Click to expand...

Yes, you missed this:

WhiteTradeOnlyLancasterOhio.jpg


image006.gif


And you missed the definition of public accommodations:

Discrimination in Public Accommodations

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

- See more at: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo...blic-accommodations.html#sthash.Jueuf2TN.dpuf

Now you are caught up to 1964
 
No Vis I didn't miss it I reject it. The government can't regulate who I associate with nor can it tell me I can't refuse to associate with anyone. You can go through what ever mental gymnastics to try and explain how the government can but I don't buy it.
 
DBS1970 said:
No Vis I didn't miss it I reject it. The government can't regulate who I associate with nor can it tell me I can't refuse to associate with anyone. You can go through what ever mental gymnastics to try and explain how the government can but I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

It can deny you a business license. I don't need mental gymnastics to explain what has been the law for half a century. Feel free not to accept it. You're in some stellar company there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top