Why We’ll Never Bake Your Fake ‘Wedding’ Cake

You mean if you think homosexuality is a sin then you go to jail for your religious beliefs.

 

That's bull ****.

You get fined if found in violation.

 

What if I refuse to pay a fine?

 

Who has gone to jail for that?

 

Seize assets. If you're stupid enough to not pay the small fine.

 

Nobody.

Just like they didn't when bigots were challenged with not serving blacks in their open-to-the-public businesses.

PN just likes drama and the victim card.

 

Who will be going to jail first is the question?

- - - Updated - - -

What if I have no assets to seize? What if I refuse to surrender my assets?

- - - Updated - - -

Being gay is not the same as being black. Being a Christian is not being a bigot. Being against Christians because of their beliefs is bigoted.

 

More faux poutrage. No one will.

Fines are relatively small. If you have a business, you have assets. Liens will be placed if you decide to be a jerk and disobey the law.

What is your argument? That gays shouldn't have equal rights because historically they didn't suffer some minimum level of inequality compared to another group like blacks were?

What the hell kind of an argument is that?

 

Threat? Have you no sense of irony? The intent of the remark was to communicate both intense disdain and simultaneous tolerance, while also being somewhat tongue in cheek. If it was a threat my point wouldn't have made sense. You'd have to unintentionally misconstrue it to not see that.

And yes, you're the oppressor. You're actively campaigning against LGBT rights. You're advocating for making me and people like me second class citizens, which actually negatively impacts people (unlike sardonic remarks made over the internet).

You might lose the ability to deprive others of their rights. What a crime. If you don't want to provide a service to a certain demographic, why not just not provide the service?

 

What happens if I refuse to surrender my assets? So what if you place a lien? What happens then?

Well, as a matter of fact, the 13th - 15th Amendments are known as the Civil War Amendments for a reason.

To my knowledge, the Civil War was not about freeing the gays.

 

Noted that you ignored the fact that the scripture quotation used is in fact an incorrect translation, but there again you have to as anything else blows the religious angle out of the water.

Oh and BTW I would say the same for any person, religious or not, that attempted to discriminate against another while being the owner of a business serving the public, and that includes homosexuals, so your attempt to play the victim card against me is a 100% failure.

 

It means that your morality is backward. That it's really the absence there of.

You literally think hurting your own businesses is a stand. It's self immolation.

It doesn't appear that you are righteous to anybody. So fall on the sword, nobody is a martyr if no one is saved.

 

You're still here? Shame. Is it actively campaigning against GBLT rights to
refuse to contribute to activities which are against my religious beliefs? If you
are forcing Christians to accept your private behavior publicly or lose their
livelihoods, their businesses, their money or property, or even their freedom,
how does that comport with, "I only ask that you return this kindness by allowing
me to live as I wish just as I allow you to live as you wish"? People have already
lost their jobs, their businesses and soon they will be prosecuted by the government
for civil rights violations so that gay people can get married? How farcical is that?
Gay people don't have a right to get married, not to each other anyway. But if they
want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is what
marriage means. So in that sense, there is no discrimination. But the 14th
Amendment was never a redefinition of marriage. That's just plain stupidity. The
premise of your argument is faulty, that of denying people their rights. If it were
someone's right to marry someone of the same sex, why was that right overlooked
in the entire 19th Century? Why did nobody notice for most of the 20th Century?
Why did the GBLT people say that it was a states rights issue to overturn DOMA, and
then when all the states passed laws against gay marriage, they said it was a federal
civil rights issue? Because the whole damned thing is a fraud and a scam. It it a way
for gays to gain the system to get money out of the taxpayers. And it is a way to get
back at their families and churches who still think that homosexuality is a sin or are
otherwise repulsed by nihilistic and licentious personal behavior that is a choice.

 

Feeling like a martyr is common.

But falling for immorality and faux religion only makes somebody a fool.

 

So you continue to be pro-persecution pro-prosecution of Christians? Okay, I believe you.

I guess if this current generation thinks that it is okay to throw Christians in jail for being
Christians, maybe the next generation can throw you in jail for not being Christian.

 

Gay people have the right to marry their same sex partner. So you saying they don't is a lie. If that is what you tell yourself to sleep at night, so be it.

As far as it being legal up until it wasn't, discrimination against women was legal up until it wasn't, all things that were legal up until they weren't. That's a stupid rationale on your part.

Further that it's about getting back at society that's just funny.

 

If you place it in the butcher block of politics. It's fair game. If you don't want it regulated don't use it as defense of immoral behavior.

Throwing Christian in jail? That's a bit hyperbolic isn't it? All we ate saying is your immoral beliefs aren't a good basis for law.

 

Still ignoring the incorrect translation of scripture I see, and your victim card is still failing because no where have I said anything about throwing Christians in jail for being Christians .. nice attempt at misrepresentation though.

 

The first Gay owned baker I find I will walk my butt right in and demand them to bake me a cake that reads "being gay is a sin" and sue the hell out of him when he refuses to do so

 

Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic. I cannot stop being attracted to the same sex no matter how hard I try. If I fall in love with a man, what right does the government have to tell me that I can't have the same rights that I would in a relationship with a woman?

Furthermore, I'm not in any way in favor of banning a religious ideology. I'm in favour of using the law to keep bigots from ever spitting in my face again. I want the same protections that you get. Hell, I'll extend the generosity of leaving denial of service up to states if I can just be guaranteed that future generations of queer people won't have to live in paranoia and subjugation. This is not an effort to oppress religious groups, but rather to lift ourselves out of the gutter.

Another thing: you claim that the word marriage refers to a union between two opposite sex partners. A word is nothing more than the meaning it conveys. The fact that I can refer to two same sex partners marrying without mass confusion proves that it's equally capable of representing a union between two same sex partners. The word has already been redefined by society and it cannot be easily undone.

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection. Gender and Sexuality Minorities are classes of people with a particular innate characteristic, therefore the amendment applies to us.

The LGBT rights movement is older then you believe. We were forced into secrecy for a long time, and our silence naturally lead to nobody hearing us. It was outspoken people like Allen Ginsberg and William S Burroughs that brought mass attention to our existence in America in the fifties. LGBT rights were heavily linked with sixties and seventies counterculture, but AIDS wiping out a generation of gay men abt the rise of neoconservatism hampered our movement again for a bit until recently.

Furthermore, we aren't in this for pretty hatred. We've been trampled upon and driven to madness by the sheer stress of being closeted for centuries. We're fighting back against the treatment that made us miserable. We're not evil. You're not evil. I happen to think that you're misguided, but I don't think either of us is malicious.

Lastly: I'm nihilistic as all hell, but that's my personal problem. I may also be licentious. Those are not characteristics of queer people as a whole. Those are just personal failings.

 

Go for it.

 

Nice false equivocacy fallacy .. now if you had said that you were going to walk in and demand a wedding cake and they refused I'd be standing right beside you as you sued them.

You do know that not a single gay person has asked a religious baker to produce a wedding cake with any words like "religion is rubbish" or even "being gay is not a sin" on it don't you?

 

You are hardly the person to be giving lectures on morality.

 

Note to [MENTION=49589]Polydectes[/MENTION]: We passed the Nineteenth Amendment.

 

I am not the one putting the First Amendment on the butcher block, liberals are.

I am not the one claiming homosexuality is moral behavior.

I am not the one saying that if homosexuals are not accommodated, then that is a violation of their civil rights.

If you violate someone's civil rights, do you not go to jail?