Poll of the Day > Jeff Sessions says with the BLESSING of Trump that CHRISTIANS can REFUSE Gays!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

US Attorney Jeff Sessions suggested Tuesday that he with the blessing of Trump himself that the courts should side with bakeries whose owners should be allowed to REFUSE to fill orders for same sex weddings!!

The Dept of Justice already sided with a Christian Baker in Colorado who refused to make a gay couple wedding cakes because their marriage runs counter to his religious beliefs

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeship in Denver said his religious beliefs were being violated when 2 men asked to make a cake for them..Now Jeff told Christian Broadcasting Network that the freedom to avoid participating in events violates one religion is a "fundamental right. Too often have we ignored what the Constitution actually says. it says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So the question is, the cake baker has more than just personal view here. He has a religious view and he feels that he is not being able to freely exercise his religion, by being required to participate in a ceremony in some fahion that he does not believe in"

The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall as Jack is challenging a Colorado law that held him liable for turning away Charlrie Craig and David Mullins who wanted a cake for their 2012 wedding. Phillips refused because his Christian Faith opposes gay marriages.

The Trump Administration will make a "strong plea" to the courts to side with him and to allow Christians to bake for "whomever they want and refuse to whomever they want"

Colorado sided with the gay couple despite them finding another bakery to fill their order but Colorado states that no business may turn away gay couples.

The ACLU is representing the men and say that this is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate.

This case is similar to California Baker, Cathy Miller who faced boycotts after she refused to bake for gay couples at Tastries Bakery..

She said her Christians beliefs prohibit her for making cakes at gay weddings which has been a policy for 5 years with no issue..but following a cake tasting event, that's when she refused a gay couple and referred them to Gimme Some Sugar Cakes, their competitor.

Cathy says "Me and my husband and i are Christians and we know that God created everyone and he created everyone equal. So it's not that we don't like people of certain groups of people There's just certain things that violate my conscience. We work for him. If i fulfill this order, i believe God will NOT let me into HEAVEN when i die"

Do you think Christians should be allowed to turn away gay customers?

Jeff - Christian Nut

https://tinyurl.com/y8a37t7f

Jack - Christian Whacko

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/11/14/453A79C000000578-0-image-a-1_1507728499336.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/11/14/453A79A100000578-0-image-a-13_1507728614315.jpg

Cathy - Christian Kook

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/11/14/453A79B600000578-0-image-a-17_1507728967339.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/11/14/453A79AF00000578-0-image-a-19_1507729058800.jpg

Charlie and David - Gay couple

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/11/14/453A799D00000578-0-image-a-3_1507728522247.jpg
---

lol I don't want Jack near my food.
---

Discrimination is not okay.
---

waterdeepchu posted...

Discrimination is not okay.

Neither is forcing people to act against their will. If you don't want discrimination then attack the religion, not the people trying to avoid eternal damnation.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

waterdeepchu posted...

Discrimination is not okay.

Neither is forcing people to act against their will. If you don't want discrimination then attack the religion, not the people trying to avoid eternal damnation.

Better pray homophobics <3 cake enough to support his business.
---

Zangulus posted...

What a load of horse shit. Nowhere does it say christians will be sent to hell for baking a cake.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Bible says don't associate with sinners.

Ezekiel 33:7-9

if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

It also recommends you call out people's sin to get in to Heaven.

They already avoid an easy path to heaven to be considerate, don't be upset they don't outright enable you to sin.
---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Better pray homophobics <3 cake enough to support his business.

This would be an appropriate judgement but whiny children who can take their custom next door prefer to forsake judgement of their peers in favour of controversial ruling in court.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zangulus posted...

What a load of horse shit. Nowhere does it say christians will be sent to hell for baking a cake.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Bible says don't associate with sinners.

Ezekiel 33:7-9

if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

It also recommends you call out people's sin to get in to Heaven.

They already avoid an easy path to heaven to be considerate, don't be upset they don't outright enable you to sin.

You also can't ear mixed linens or sleep in the same bed as your wife on her cycle. So I mean you can't pick and choose my mans.
---

The law should not allow people to discriminate others base on their own superstitions.
---

I think if you have a moral objection to an event you shouldn't be forced to participate.
---

They could bake the cake and give it to the paying customer and be done with it.

Instead they choose to be hateful and discriminatory.

They didn't have to have anything to do with a gay wedding. Baking cakes is their daily business. They could have totally ignored the that the wedding was gay, it didn't have anything to do with them. Nobody forced anything gay or homosexual on the bakers.
But the cake makers forced their hate (based on religious beliefs) on the gay people by refusing them normal service.

Discriminatory hate like that leads to a huge amount of suffering in the world, now and in the past. Think violence against same sex couples. Apartheid in South Africa. Women not allowed to vote or study in the past. And still in the middle east. Buddhist killing Muslims in Myanmar. Jews in Europe in WW2. The list is endless.
And it starts with refusing something simple like a customer in a shop. "Go away, I don't like your kind, next customer please!"

Nobody is "forcing" the bakers to make a cake. Making cakes is their business. It's not for them to select who they sell it to. Unless it impacts them in some way. In this case it does not.
What if they refused to sell cakes to jews, blacks, and women?

I don't care if you're gay or not, but not allowing people to run their own businesses a certain way because of YOUR beliefs is discrimination.
---

And I'm not allowed to talk about this
---

ninja_lootz posted...

I think if you have a moral objection to an event you shouldn't be forced to participate.

Fortunately, "here's your cake, have fun" isn't really participating in the wedding. I'm more sympathetic toward, say, wedding photographers, who actually do have to be present and an integral part of the ceremony. This whole cake thing is just the death throes of homophobes scared that they no longer have any real power, trying desperately to hurt gay people in any way they can, no matter how petty and impotent that effort is.
---

No business should be forced to do business with anyone. Let capitalism sort this shit out.
---

Zangulus posted...

Peterass posted...

I don't care if you're gay or not, but not allowing people to run their own businesses a certain way because of YOUR beliefs is discrimination.

Then all protections should be removed? Right? Because someone will have a belief that you shouldnt be protected for some reason.

It worked so well for the Blacks...

The freedom of religion does not mean youre allowed to force your beliefs on others.

Troll_Police_ posted...

No business should be forced to do business with anyone. Let capitalism sort this shit out.

Because thats worked so well in the past... oh...

What protections? Don't over complicate this. A private business can choose who they do or do not do business with for any reason.
---

Zangulus posted...

Peterass posted...

What protections? Don't over complicate this. A private business can choose who they do or do not do business with for any reason.

Except, you know, when they cant. One would think the litany of bakeries that have been sued, and lost from denying service to gays would have cemented this very basic fact in your mind.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of public accommodation include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also cant discriminate based on someones unconventional dress.

Sexual orientation isnt a federal mandate, yet. However it will become one with time. And 40% of states already cover it.

Businesses are not a free for all allowed to do whatever they want. Thats exactly what consumer protections are.

Im not over complicating anything. Youre being ignorant is all.

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law."
---

Should the bakery have to make a cake for someone marrying their dog? When will this madness end for "progressives"?

So then, if I got into a gay bakery, and tell them I am having an anti gay party, and I want a cake that has some derogatory names for gay people on it, should they not be allowed to turn my ass away?
---

Didn't anybody read the Bible?? It clearly reads: Judge lest ye be judged... unless you are gay, then you are wrong and everything you stand for is wrong and you deserve to be shunned from society.

I wanna see the Bible those people read.
The one I have says that Jesus walked around with sinners, befriended them, forgave them for their sins and turn the other cheek.
And then I wanna know if they follow the other laws from the Bible, or if they just cherrypick the one that fits them.
Leviticus 20:13 contains the death of men that sleep with men as they do with women, but have they checked the other laws mentioned in Leviticus?
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16)
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

The book Deuteronomy also lays some laws down, but nobody ever mentions them, but why not take a look at those laws also?
Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

Why are they not following these laws?
---

With the blessing of Trump? Trump doesn't exactly have the religious authority to absolve Christians from refusing gay people =/
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

So then, if I got into a gay bakery, and tell them I am having an anti gay party, and I want a cake that has some derogatory names for gay people on it, should they not be allowed to turn my ass away?

That's easy enough to construe as threatening, so yes, they should be able to turn you away. It's also pretty reasonable to define that as being an asshole, and assholes are not a protected class (plus nobody likes them), so it's fair game in that regard, too.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Bible says don't associate with sinners.

Taken out of context. This is something Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church specifically, because it was a problem.

Ezekiel 33:7-9

if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

It also recommends you call out people's sin to get in to Heaven.

Even if this is true--because I don't think this is taken that literally--this was before Jesus came, so it's pointless now.

Jesus tells us:

Matt: 7:1 - "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

and:

Matt: 22:37 - "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

What gay people do with themselves is between them and God, and loving others does not mean shunning them if they aren't perfect.

/topic
---

Foppe posted...

Why are they not following these laws?

@Foppe

Because thats part of the Old Testament, it was guidelines set for the Israelites in ancient times.

The whole point of The Christ dying on the Cross for the sins of mankind was so that the Israelites/Jews would not have to sacrifice livestock to atone for their sins anymore. The whole thing is like a "out with the old in with the new" mindset".

The people that believed Christ died came to be known as Christians, the rest remained Jews.

Sounds like cherrypicking what Jesus sacrify removed and kept.
---

dioxxys posted...

Foppe posted...

Why are they not following these laws?

@Foppe

Because thats part of the Old Testament, it was guidelines set for the Israelites in ancient times.

The whole point of The Christ dying on the Cross for the sins of mankind was so that the Israelites/Jews would not have to sacrifice livestock to atone for their sins anymore. The whole thing is like a "out with the old in with the new" mindset".

The people that believed Christ died came to be known as Christians, the rest remained Jews.

Which means that quoting Leviticus to justify disallowing homosexuality makes somebody a pretty weak Christian, no?
---

Aint all anti-gay parts in the New Testament, all three of them, just references to the Old Testament as well?
Which makes it even better.
---

Any business owner should be allowed to refuse business for any reason, given that another business owner will pick up that business unless the government is forbidding the sales of services to groups.

Voluntary trade is the cornerstone of the free market and laws forcing people to sell or perform services against their will are tyrannical in design and unamerican in nature.
---

I think I would say yes, even if I don't like it. It may be an issue with no good solution. There are problems doing it either way.

He may be a doofus, but one thing Cenk Uygar said that I think I'd agree with is that it depends on the scale of the business. If you're a small independent store, and there are tons of alternatives, so you don't really have any reach or influence, then yes you should be able to discriminate against your customers.

But if it's something like Walmart or some kind of sufficiently large company (who knows what the criteria would be for 'sufficiently large' though), then no, you shouldn't be able to discriminate against your customers.
---

Sahuagin posted...

I think I would say yes, even if I don't like it. It may be an issue with no good solution. There are problems doing it either way.

He may be a doofus, but one thing Cenk Uygar said that I think I'd agree with is that it depends on the scale of the business. If you're a small independent store, and there are tons of alternatives, so you don't really have any reach or influence, then yes you should be able to discriminate against your customers.

But if it's something like Walmart or some kind of sufficiently large company (who knows what the criteria would be for 'sufficiently large' though), then no, you shouldn't be able to discriminate against your customers.

A Wal-Mart would never do something like that, though. Mega corporations don't really have principles. The *closest* you'd get is something like a Chik-fil-A or Hobby Lobby, but there are countless other fast food chains with better coverage and nobody needs a hobby store.
---

Zeus posted...

A Wal-Mart would never do something like that, though.

never? you know this how? that's a completely invalid argument.

Zeus posted...

Mega corporations don't really have principles.

What's a 'mega corporation'. Lowes is pretty big, and they, for example, refuse to say 'Merry Christmas', so yes, large companies can have 'principles', it depends who's running them, obviously.

I know kind of what you're trying to say, I guess. The larger a company, the more obsessed it will be with money. A smaller company will tend to be less obsessed with money, and more free to act on their own prejudices at the expense of their business. A larger company would be run by money obsessed managers whos principles will be narrowed to the point of only thinking of money. Ok, maybe, maybe not, but that's at most a tendency, not an absolute.
---

Zeus posted...

Any business owner should be allowed to refuse business for any reason, given that another business owner will pick up that business unless the government is forbidding the sales of services to groups.

In an infinite market, sure, but in case you haven't noticed, there is a finite number of businesses in America. Another business owner won't necessarily pick up that business, because another business owner won't necessarily exist. The consequence is that people are deprived of these services on bases that nobody should be deprived of anything, which is a massive problem when the services in question are necessary ones (obviously, having a wedding cake isn't that necessary, but that's not the only service people can be denied).

And really, is it so hard to demand that business owners not be bigoted assholes?
---

Zangulus posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zangulus posted...

What a load of horse shit. Nowhere does it say christians will be sent to hell for baking a cake.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Bible says don't associate with sinners.

Ezekiel 33:7-9

if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

It also recommends you call out people's sin to get in to Heaven.

They already avoid an easy path to heaven to be considerate, don't be upset they don't outright enable you to sin.

d by the way the fake Christians live these days, as already pointed out by mixing fabrics, and with women who are unclean, every single one of them is a sinner. Yet they dont do a damned thing about that.

Its all a load of shit used as a smoke screen. All forgiving god that damns people for baking a cake (for someone magically sinning more than all of their other customers.).

So do these bakeries do a thorough soul check background before baking every single cake?

Huh. Totally makes sense to me.

That was all done away with when Jesus died on the cross. Read the book of Acts if you can't take my word for it.
---

Sahuagin posted...

Zeus posted...

A Wal-Mart would never do something like that, though.

never? you know this how? that's a completely invalid argument.

Okay, it's absurdly unlikely.

Sahuagin posted...

Zeus posted...

Mega corporations don't really have principles.

What's a 'mega corporation'. Lowes is pretty big, and they, for example, refuse to say 'Merry Christmas', so yes, large companies can have 'principles', it depends who's running them, obviously.

That's not really a matter of principle, though. Saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" is a popular token inclusivity effort. It generally doesn't hurt your business much one way or the other.
---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Any business owner should be allowed to refuse business for any reason, given that another business owner will pick up that business unless the government is forbidding the sales of services to groups.

In an infinite market, sure, but in case you haven't noticed, there is a finite number of businesses in America. Another business owner won't necessarily pick up that business, because another business owner won't necessarily exist. The consequence is that people are deprived of these services on bases that nobody should be deprived of anything, which is a massive problem when the services in question are necessary ones (obviously, having a wedding cake isn't that necessary, but that's not the only service people can be denied).

And really, is it so hard to demand that business owners not be bigoted assholes?

The odds of another company not picking up that business are ludicrously low. At the most, if it's a fringe service (like wedding cakes) it might be the only business in the town and you'd be stuck going elsewhere (or, in the case of wedding cakes, relying on a normal bakery). And I think you're conflating "finite" with "small" because, while there may not be an infinite number of businesses, the sheer number which do exist is tremendous. If a need isn't being met, businesses will either spring up to meet it or other businesses -- recognizing that they can get a large amount of profit -- will step in.

In general, I could understand an argument mandating *essential* services, but most essential services -- hospitals, utilities, etc -- are covered by the government anyway which can't discriminate. Likewise, major chains cover the majority of needs in this country so the most important areas are already covered.

Otherwise, the idea that nobody should be "deprived of anything" is fundamentally an issue of entitlement. As it stands, countless people of "deprived of things" due to a myriad of factors including income, availability, etc. So, unless you pass a law mandating that things should be free and businesses have to open in certain areas, there will always be some "deprivation"

adjl posted...

And really, is it so hard to demand that business owners not be bigoted assholes?

Why not ask whether it's really so hard not to be an asshole who forces a business to do something against their will instead of walking around the corner and buying somewhere else? Frankly, if I knew somebody didn't want to serve me, I wouldn't go there. However, you have asses who -- recognizing the discomfort -- either do it to shove it their faces or to sue them.
---

Zeus posted...

If a need isn't being met, businesses will either spring up to meet it or other businesses -- recognizing that they can get a large amount of profit -- will step in.

There's a large amount of profit from being the only bakery in town that will bake cakes for 10% of its population's weddings? In a city with a million people, maybe, but a town of 5000? Good luck with that. Good luck with that even if you're talking about a more everyday service. And that's even without getting into the fact that homosexuality's incidence is probably going to be less than the usual 10% in such a small town (both because smaller towns tend to be more homophobic to start with and because only having ~24 potential romantic partners to pick from isn't exactly conducive to settling down there).

Remember that the total number of businesses in America isn't relevant here. America's a big place, so of course there'll be a huge number of businesses. America's communities, however, are not necessarily big places, and it's communities that people exist in. The fact that there are 146 (not a real number) bakeries that will serve gay people in Manhattan means nothing to a gay couple in Jasper, AK, and as soon as you start discriminating such that gay people (or black people, or Muslims, or anyone that doesn't look Aryan) have to drive 2-3 communities over to get what they want, you are creating a disadvantaged class with that discrimination, and that's no bueno.

Zeus posted...

In general, I could understand an argument mandating *essential* services, but most essential services -- hospitals, utilities, etc -- are covered by the government anyway which can't discriminate. Likewise, major chains cover the majority of needs in this country so the most important areas are already covered.

Major chains are also businesses, and you started this line of reasoning with "Any business owner." No cherry-picking now. Additionally, most essential services aren't covered by the government in the US. Hospitals are treated as private businesses. Utilities are private businesses. Real estate (including renting) is a private business. Grocery stores are private businesses. Drug stores are private businesses. And in smaller communities, many of those services aren't going to have more than one option available, because there simply isn't enough business to support more than one.

Zeus posted...

Otherwise, the idea that nobody should be "deprived of anything" is fundamentally an issue of entitlement. As it stands, countless people of "deprived of things" due to a myriad of factors including income, availability, etc. So, unless you pass a law mandating that things should be free and businesses have to open in certain areas, there will always be some "deprivation"

There will, and that's a problem, but that's due to factors beyond anyone's easy control. You can't sell a product to people that can't afford it without yourself being unable to afford staying in business. Depriving people of a service due to voluntary discrimination, however, is very easy to fix: Just stop discriminating against them. This is entirely a voluntary decision on the part of the business owner.

Zeus posted...

Why not ask whether it's really so hard not to be an a****** who forces a business to do something against their will instead of walking around the corner and buying somewhere else?

Because it's easier to stop being a bigoted asshole than it is to walk around the corner. Even in cases where there actually is something around the corner (which, as we've established already, is only really true in larger communities). Just don't. It's really that simple.
---

adjl posted...

There's a large amount of profit from being the only bakery in town that will bake cakes for 10% of its population's weddings? In a city with a million people, maybe, but a town of 5000? Good luck with that. Good luck with that even if you're talking about a more everyday service. And that's even without getting into the fact that homosexuality's incidence is probably going to be less than the usual 10% in such a small town (both because smaller towns tend to be more homophobic to start with and because only having ~249 potential romantic partners to pick from isn't exactly conducive to settling down there).

Because apparently only that town exists and giant walls separate it from all other towns, thus preventing travel. Having a bakery that won't meet your needs is no different from having a bad bakery, since it both cases you'd simply go to one in another town -- which I alluded to, but realize I didn't spell out.

Otherwise, you're kinda outing your hatred for small towns by disparaging them with those accusations.

adjl posted...

Remember that the total number of businesses in America isn't relevant here. America's a big place, so of course there'll be a huge number of businesses. America's communities, however, are not necessarily big places, and it's communities that people exist in. The fact that there are 146 (not a real number) bakeries that will serve gay people in Manhattan means nothing to a gay couple in Jasper, AK, and as soon as you start discriminating such that gay people (or black people, or Muslims, or anyone that doesn't look Aryan) have to drive 2-3 communities over to get what they want, you are creating a disadvantaged class with that discrimination, and that's no bueno.

And what happens if you can't find a service in your town in the first place? You'd still need to travel. People choose their regions knowing that there will be scarcities. Otherwise, they'd all just live in cities. The idea that a town of 500 should contain everything a person should every want or need is fundamentally an entitlement issue and, in reality, it's unlikely to even have a bakery in really small towns.

More importantly, the vast majority of headline-grabbing cases HAVE been ones in areas with multiple bakeries, etc, where the couple could have reasonably picked somewhere else but they wanted to stick it to the business owner.

adjl posted...

Major chains are also businesses, and you started this line of reasoning with "Any business owner." No cherry-picking now. Additionally, most essential services aren't covered by the government in the US. Hospitals are treated as private businesses. Utilities are private businesses. Real estate (including renting) is a private business. Grocery stores are private businesses. Drug stores are private businesses. And in smaller communities, many of those services aren't going to have more than one option available, because there simply isn't enough business to support more than one.

However, most major chains don't have "business owners," they have boards of directors, stock, etc, where you don't have one person making those kinds of decisions. Otherwise, you're trying to weasel out of a clear implication by saying, "Oh, you weren't specific enough!" which is an entirely bad faith argument.

Otherwise, you're attempting to distort the nature of hospitals, utilities, etc, which ARE effectively government-run, given that they receive heavy funding from and/or tightly restrained by the government. Claiming that a public utility is a private company, like a Wal-mart or your local baker, is a wholly disingenuous argument.
---

adjl posted...

There will, and that's a problem, but that's due to factors beyond anyone's easy control. You can't sell a product to people that can't afford it without yourself being unable to afford staying in business. Depriving people of a service due to voluntary discrimination, however, is very easy to fix: Just stop discriminating against them. This is entirely a voluntary decision on the part of the business owner.

Likewise, the fix for a business refusing to provide a service is very easy: Go somewhere else.

adjl posted...

Because it's easier to stop being a bigoted asshole than it is to walk around the corner. Even in cases where there actually is something around the corner (which, as we've established already, is only really true in larger communities). Just don't. It's really that simple.

Or you can stop being a dick by forcing them at gunpoint to violate their religious beliefs over what's actually a trivial matter for you. And, while you trivialize and mock, getting somebody to change their religion or any other deeply-held, sincere belief is about as hard as getting them to change their sexuality (ie, good luck with that). So, instead of forcing either person to change, just go somewhere else. Don't be a dick and assume you have some tremendous moral right to use the government to line your pockets while destroying mom & pop businesses which lasted 30-40 years before you came along.
---

They should have the right to refuse service to gays, and everyone else should have the right to make their lives miserable for being the homophobic shits that they are.

Kind of like how you can march in neo-nazi rallies, but your employer can fire you for being a racist buttwad who makes the company look bad.
---

adjl posted...

Because it's easier to stop being a bigoted asshole than it is to walk around the corner.

Well, yeah, that's easy for a non-bigoted asshole to say.
---

GreenGoblinOck posted...

Zangulus posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zangulus posted...

What a load of horse shit. Nowhere does it say christians will be sent to hell for baking a cake.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Bible says don't associate with sinners.

Ezekiel 33:7-9

if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

It also recommends you call out people's sin to get in to Heaven.

They already avoid an easy path to heaven to be considerate, don't be upset they don't outright enable you to sin.

d by the way the fake Christians live these days, as already pointed out by mixing fabrics, and with women who are unclean, every single one of them is a sinner. Yet they dont do a damned thing about that.

Its all a load of shit used as a smoke screen. All forgiving god that damns people for baking a cake (for someone magically sinning more than all of their other customers.).

So do these bakeries do a thorough soul check background before baking every single cake?

Huh. Totally makes sense to me.

That was all done away with when Jesus died on the cross. Read the book of Acts if you can't take my word for it.

So he died so we can mix fabiric, but not so we can love who we want?
---