What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

heyhey said:
Yes I know but this argument is one you often here from those that oppose gay marriage. It has been used in this thread as a reason for opposition. Yours just happened to be the most recent post addressing a private companies concerns. :)
Click to expand...

oh ok, and i think they are legit concerns. It is simply an area that where everyone wont be happy. But I can see a distinction between having gay marriage legal and forcing people to participate in it.
 
stitches said:
The law that protects persons from balh blah blah bklah blah blah blah bnlah .
Click to expand...


whatever, fact is if i go to a bakery and he denies me a request. i say good day sir and move on to a next bakery.

thing is with these lbgt **** is they force people and society to do stuff they are not comfortable with.


they are shoving their way of live down our throat, that's not how acceptance works. that only creates a polarizing society.

if baker a doe not want to make a fabulous gay wedding cake. move on. sooner or later society will accept you by choice(or not) and all bakeries will make fabulous gay pink wedding cakes.
so **** the gay movement.
again not the gays, but their movment trying to shove **** down my throat.



what the gays are oding is the same muslims are doing.
Muslim: we dont eat PORK we are in a predominantly christian pork loving country so stop serving porks at public schools!
****: we need a wedding cake and a wedding photgrapher so get the **** over her bake me a cake and photograph while i make a mockery of what you define as mariage.

jews as a group dont go in countries forcing schools to stop serving pork and shelfish and all other stuff. we decline politly, dont eat it and stfu. and go to a place of business that does serve to our dietary restrictions.



forcing bakeries photographers and all other wedding services to perform gay ****.
is like jews demanding all restaurants start serving to our dietary restrictions.


how would you like it if we went around the country and outlawed pork. or demanded every single restaurant starts offering kosher
 
It's not the same and that's why it most probably won't be successful in the case of Muslims trying to force schools not to serve pork, and it will be successful in cases where the state has enumerated sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in their civil rights statutes. The reason is simple - one breaks the law and the other doesn't. Lets take the specific case in Oregon. There is clearly a law broken, while in the case with Muslims seeking to RESTRICT what's being served there isn't a law broken(if that's exactly what they want, I haven't read on it so I am not sure, taking your word for it). Their rights have not been violated, and they have not been discriminated against. They can order everything that any other non-muslim can order, or they can choose not to order it. In the case of the bakery, the discrimination comes from refusal of service that is available to everybody else and that's why it's against the law.

Plus public schools fall into a different category and they are not private businesses.

In short - one aims to RESTRICT what all others eat, the other seeks to be allowed to have what others are allowed to have. One seeks suppression of rights and freedoms, the other one seeks lifting the suppression of rights.

It would be the same if gay people were trying to force the bakery not to make cakes for hetero weddings, which they are not...

P.S. I can actually see a case where the Muslims might have a case if pork was the only meal that was served in the public school, in which case there would be de facto discrimination, if not in intent - in result(BTW practices can be discriminatory even if you don't intend it, but it results in a protected class suffering adverse impact and is punishable by the same laws - disparate treatment vs disparate impact). In this case the solution would be to either include other types of meal or change the existing one with something that doesn't violate the rights of any protected groups.
 
stitches said:
Again, the question is not "so what if one bakery shop refused to bake me a cake?", the question is "what if all of them refused?" and "what's stopping them?"(substitute bakery with hospital if you think acquiring a cake is trivial and non-important). What's stopping them is the law, what's allowing it is the societal tendencies.
Click to expand...

if gay is as normal as they claim. sure there would be some gay bakery.
or some guy wanting to make money hand over fist and accept their money.
 
heyhey said:
I think this kind of argument with regards to gay marriage is a bit of a straw man. Those laws can be addressed without banning gay marriage. If people don't like those laws then they should focus on those laws but they shouldn't use them as their reason to oppose others exercising their rights. Further weighing the concerns of the baker against those of the couple it is clear that exclusion from marriage has a greater negative effect on the couple than forced baking for profit has on the baker.
Click to expand...


you must be a man withouth morals and principles.

cus you underestimate what it takes for a man to lose his principles or morals
 
stitches said:
P.S. I can actually see a case where the Muslims might have a case if pork was the only meal that was served in the public school, in which case there would be de facto discrimination, if not in intent - in result(BTW practices can be discriminatory even if you don't intend it, but it results in a protected class suffering adverse impact and is punishable by the same laws - disparate treatment vs disparate impact). In this case the solution would be to either include other types of meal or change the existing one with something that doesn't violate the rights of any protected groups.
Click to expand...
well from living in the netherlands and knowing the way it is in belgium.
I could not eat in the university's cafeteria.
there simple was NOTHING for me to eat. had to either bring stuff from home. or go to vending machine and buy overpriced snicker's.

so if i forgot my home meals. i would live on snickers the whole day or just go home and get it. (speaking from personal jew experience).

also 5-10 years ago pork was basically only meat served. even chicken or beef stuff had the pork mixed in because of it being really cheap compared to chicken and beef. so just ad 20-35% it tastes the same and viola cheap meat.
but now the market set the trend. as in there being a demand for chicken only and beef only meatproducts. even if it is higher priced.

so the FREE market took care of that.

there is even a pizza chain who makes bacon, peperoni and ham from non pork-meats.
 
DutchJazzer said:
you must be a man withouth morals and principles.

cus you underestimate what it takes for a man to lose his principles or morals
Click to expand...

wtf R U talking about?

Imagine if a doctor refused to treat a gay patient, a police officer refused to help a gay citizen, a grocer to sell food to gay customers. There is nothing moral in what the baker was doing. The baker does not need to approve but if that person is moral would serve them regardless.
 
Mmmmm....pork.

Damnit now I need to cook a pulled pork (or 3). Anyone wanna come over? Bring cole slaw, and byob.
 
heyhey said:
wtf R U talking about?

Imagine if a doctor refused to treat a gay patient, a police officer refused to help a gay citizen, a grocer to sell food to gay customers. There is nothing moral in what the baker was doing. The baker does not need to approve but if that person is moral would serve them regardless.
Click to expand...

if a doctor refused to treat a gay patient = Public healthcare, not privatly owned practice.
a police officer refused to help a gay citizen = again a public service paid by gays their tax dollar
a grocer to sell food to gay customers = His perogative it is a private owned businnes.

so in short for doctors refusing should be allowed if its a private practice.
police officer in no way should refuse.
grocer can do whatever the **** he wants, just like a barber, a butcher, a bakery, a photographer.

The baker does not need to approve but if that person is moral would serve them regardless. the baker sees mariage as something between a man and a woman, all other forms of mariage he might deem immoral for whatever reason. so by providing a service to a gay mariage. he might be doing things that do not align with his moral compas.



btw lets put it from another angle.
car dealer sells ford and gmc. but i want hyundai do i bring him to court no.
jsut as a baker is allowed to sell pink cakes white cakes blue cakes strawberry cakes and might not have cakes with 2 dudes on top.
as a baker i would try the loop hole by only offering cakes whats in a catalog. with only certain options changeable. what wont be changeable is the normal couple on top. so a gay is free to buy any cake in my bakery go home and rape it by putting 2 men on top.


not because your molars dont align with the morals of the baker means is immoral.


gays should be free to marry whoever the **** they want. but i wont be attending it. and neither should bakers, photographers and other various PRIVATELY owned services be FORCED to partake with or without financial incentive. because forcing someone to do something is WRONG.
a bussiness owner should have the right to refuse without government taking away his businesses(via licenses etc etc)
 
DutchJazzer said:
if a doctor refused to treat a gay patient = Public healthcare, not privatly owned practice.
a police officer refused to help a gay citizen = again a public service paid by gays their tax dollar
a grocer to sell food to gay customers = His perogative it is a private owned businnes.

so in short for doctors refusing should be allowed if its a private practice.
police officer in no way should refuse.
grocer can do whatever the **** he wants, just like a barber, a butcher, a bakery, a photographer.

The baker does not need to approve but if that person is moral would serve them regardless. the baker sees mariage as something between a man and a woman, all other forms of mariage he might deem immoral for whatever reason. so by providing a service to a gay mariage. he might be doing things that do not align with his moral compas.



btw lets put it from another angle.
car dealer sells ford and gmc. but i want hyundai do i bring him to court no.
jsut as a baker is allowed to sell pink cakes white cakes blue cakes strawberry cakes and might not have cakes with 2 dudes on top.
as a baker i would try the loop hole by only offering cakes whats in a catalog. with only certain options changeable. what wont be changeable is the normal couple on top. so a gay is free to buy any cake in my bakery go home and rape it by putting 2 men on top.


not because your molars dont align with the morals of the baker means is immoral.


gays should be free to marry whoever the **** they want. but i wont be attending it. and neither should bakers, photographers and other various PRIVATELY owned services be FORCED to partake with or without financial incentive. because forcing someone to do something is WRONG.
a bussiness owner should have the right to refuse without government taking away his businesses(via licenses etc etc)
Click to expand...

So you agree that it is a separate issue. Good because that was my main point. The part of my statement that you originally focused on is how you would weigh one against the other. That is to say if the 2 issues are indeed not separable then you have to pick the one that does the least harm.

Also you need to decide if you want a response on what I think should be legal or what I think is moral.
 
I think we should all be allowed to marry who or whatever we want whenever we want and however many we want.

So aren't we also discriminating against polygamists since it is still illegal? Who are we to say how many wives or husbands someone can have? I think we should lift all restrictions on marriage in any way shape or form. I should be allowed to marry a tree, or a pancake, or a chicken if I want to as well. Or all 3. Maybe not with all the benefits of a married life (like tax breaks etc.), but why restrict it. It should be recognized if we so choose.
 
LadyD is very embarrassed he made himself look like a complete *** in this thread. He's negging me so hard right now. Keep it up buddy, I don't give a **** about rep. You still look like a moron in this thread forever. Amateur hour.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
LadyD is very embarrassed he made himself look like a complete *** in this thread. He's negging me so hard right now. Keep it up buddy, I don't give a **** about rep. You still look like a moron in this thread forever. Amateur hour.
Click to expand...

lol
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Keep spreading rep to neg me. I hope all that time and effort make you feel better.

lol.
Click to expand...

I negged you because of your poor attitude - laughing at anyone who has a different viewpoint than your own. Rather than explain your point of view you just laugh and call me stupid. Furthermore, where did anyone prove my idea illogical? Gameface, who actually had a constructive conversation with me - like reasonable people do - didn't realize that a private security firm would not actually be enforcing the law in the scenario I introduced.

I just don't care for your laughing at people who see and think differently than you. That ****'s ****ing ridiculous. Hopefully, that attitude won't continue to keep people from saying what they think for fear of being laughed at by people such as yourself.
 
LazyD said:
I negged you because of your poor attitude - laughing at anyone who has a different viewpoint than your own. Rather than explain your point of view you just laugh and call me stupid. Furthermore, where did anyone prove my idea illogical? Gameface, who actually had a constructive conversation with me - like reasonable people do - didn't realize that a private security firm would not actually be enforcing the law in the scenario I introduced.

I just don't care for your laughing at people who see and think differently than you. That ****'s ****ing ridiculous. Hopefully, that attitude won't continue to keep people from saying what they think for fear of being laughed at by people such as yourself.
Click to expand...

I thought your idea was stupid. So I laughed. Get over it. Or cry harder.
 
heyhey said:
So you agree that it is a separate issue. Good because that was my main point. The part of my statement that you originally focused on is how you would weigh one against the other. That is to say if the 2 issues are indeed not separable then you have to pick the one that does the least harm.

Also you need to decide if you want a response on what I think should be legal or what I think is moral.
Click to expand...

I always said in my opinion mariage is between a man and a woman for procreationm, i think gays should not get married. if they acalle it gayraiagge or something else i would not object. but in essence the defginition of marriage is being changed i PERSONALLY do not like that.
BUT if john doe and John Smith like to get married they should be free to. thats their bussiness.
but just as it is my bussines to consider it a faux marriage.

but the problem with this whole gay marriage thing is its none of the government bussiness. and by meddling with it lifting bans etc. the government is chanigng the definition of marriage and FORCING it down everyone THROAT.

I would not ever say john is married to Joe, or joan to jane. i would say they are life partners. cus to me the definition of marriage is between a man and women period.
i would never attend a gay marriage, because it makes a mockery of the institution in my book.

but they should be free to marry as long as nobody is forced of hurt to watch.

i do have an opinion in how this affects morals of society in relation to family and kids is.(but it might be a positive effect, but i am leaning towards a negative effect).

so to me the problem is the government meddling in our business
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think we should all be allowed to marry who or whatever we want whenever we want and however many we want.

So aren't we also discriminating against polygamists since it is still illegal? Who are we to say how many wives or husbands someone can have? I think we should lift all restrictions on marriage in any way shape or form. I should be allowed to marry a tree, or a pancake, or a chicken if I want to as well. Or all 3. Maybe not with all the benefits of a married life (like tax breaks etc.), but why restrict it. It should be recognized if we so choose.
Click to expand...

Marriage just like any other contract is signed between consenting adults, so unless a chicken, a tree or a pancake can give informed consent and sign a contract, one can't marry them. On the other hand I personally have no opposition to polygamy. If all involved parties agree to the terms of the marriage and enter into it voluntarily, I don't have any reasonable objections to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top