A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

1 man and 1 man can and do marry in your homestate.

that you are demonstrably incorrect.

 

By completely refuting your claims? Lol, ok.

but here is where you analogy falls apart. it is not against the law for 2 members of the same sex to enter into a marriage. It is legal in every single state in the union. You should probably read obergefell v hodges.

 

Renee, I do not demean gay people,,,,but I do not march in their parade.....seems to upset you.

 

A little premarital counseling would have turned up a clue about the guy's propensity for danger and an insurance policy would be her security blanket if she chose to marry the guy,

 

Great. So take out a cancer policy on kids. Problem solved!

Sorry, but you're missing the point. No matter. The bottom line is that government should NOT protect people from themselves, only from each other.

 

See ?
This is disengenuous, you have a choice no to participate or condone or aid or abetting homosexuality in any form.

However, if you want to classify sales and services of products and supplies or bakery, cakes or automotive repairs that are for the Public, you do not get to choose what public you will service based on;
Race, Religion, National Origin, Sexuality, Gender, Politics, Political Party affiliations,
You must serve all members of the Public equally.

This has been clearly defined by the Courts as far as defining Discrimination statutes.

 

How did I miss any point? I agree with what you're saying with regards to the marriage. It's what individuals could do. I'm not mandating government force them to do the smart thing.

 

Are you really comparing that to prohibiting a person to come into your store because of who he is. Do you feel it is OK to let somebody carrying a gun into your store but only if he is white and Christian

 

Just about every business gets tax breaks,

 

Are you afraid to answer my question? What you're asking is irrelevant.

If states cannot prohibit same sex marriage, how can any branch of government tell people they cannot walk into public with their firearms? I'm asking you to explain YOUR legal theory of law to me.

 

Since you think the comparison is irrelevant , it is a conversation ender. There are laws that keep us safe like you cannot scream fire in a theater. Guns are dangerous. Thousands die because of guns every year ...how many people died because of two people who are gay getting married.

 

No, that is not completely correct, most States issue licenses for concealed carry of handguns, and these people have a stellar record of being law abiding with a very low percentage of licenses revoked for violations.

Public accessible statistics under the freedom of information act.

Individual States laws vary on specific restrictions on where carry of firearms may be restricted or posted and specific approved signage.

Firearms are not the actual question,
Business owners cannot simply refuse normal services to customers in this fashion, decide to serve White people, yet refuse to serve Black people, simply because of skin color.

Decide to serve heterosexuals but not homosexuals,
If you open your doors to the public, you must serve all of the public, with notable exceptions being, obvious intoxication, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, disorderly, violent or crazy wild belligerent behaviors disrupting other customers or preventing customers normal activities in that business, ie stopping people from eating or being served etc in a Restaurant......

 

So what? Its not relevant.

 

Ridiculous. If I learn a skill, use my money, buy a building, buy and install equipment, and then say that I will bake cakes for people, you seem to think that as soon as I open for business that all that property is no longer mine. And you think that you - through the govt - get to tell me what to do with my property and my time and my labor.

Its not yours. You did not take the risk, its not your money. You did not take the time to learn the skills.

But you want to tell everyone else how to live. If you don't like a Christian bakery, then you open a bakery next door to it and compete. Let the people decide. But its so much easier to use the heavy hand of the govt to do your dirty work.

Ridiculous. Bigotry and racism are attitudes, and you cannot use the law to implement thought control.

But at least we see what you intend - to use the law to control speech and thought.

 

Why not? Its your business. If you don't want to serve me for whatever reason or no reason at all, then that's your right. I'll go next door.

If you believe in freedom and rights, then you have to let people live free whether you like their decisions or not.

Its just like gun rights. You either trust people to behave properly with firearms and accept they have a right to own firearms, or you think people are so irresponsible they need the govt to tell them how to live.

 

It is relevant if they’re getting government tax breaks, they better not discriminate.

 

What if next door will discriminate..and next door to that next door!
I doubt if there’s dozens of bakeries
Guns and cars and alcohol need to be regulated for the safety of others....you are free to shoot your gun in the your house all you want. You are free to deny a black or gay person access to your house...
We are talking the public domain
Are you saying we don’t need anti discrimination laws? Let me guess..you’re a white Christian male

 

In this argument, since I oppose special tax consideration for any person (I support a flat tax, no deductions or credits at all) or organization (no business taxes at all), it is not relevant.

 

Your assumption is that all people will discriminate against the same class - such as all people will refuse to serve gays. That's clearly a false assumption. As I previously pointed out, when the Christian bakeries declined to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple (the bakeries did make cakes for LGBTs, just not for weddings), numerous other bakeries came forward to make the cake.

The only time in the USA when an entire class of people were denied service was when the govt (through laws) denied the service.

Your argument has no basis in reality.

 

I'm not marching in your parade period.

 

We just have different values...you condone bigotry, I don’t . If.my child was denied a service because of who she was, I would be sad.just another reason I don’t like religion.
And if the government didn’t intercede, Jim Crow would be alive and well

 

When you open a business you know you cannot discriminate against people because you don’t like their race etc. it is then your choice to serve all who qualify or not open the business. You risk being sued....and you know that.!
You want black peoples and gay people to be denied service because of bigotry....that’s why we need laws...because bigots would rule the way they did before the civil rights act.
Do you oppose drivers licenses? You don’t want to tell everyone how to drive. Do you oppose yelling fire in a theatre? You want freedom of speech. Hey if I open a restaurant with my money and skills, why can’t I add horse meat to the stew? I don’t want the government I inspecting the food

 

You and Ronald Reagan may agree about the purposes of government, but it is still a moral decision that you killing your neighbor is wrong and that you stealing from a store is wrong, and it is yet another moral decision for government to say it is obliged to protect your neighbor and the property of that store. Government's laws are the clearest indication that its citizens' get, of what it thinks is and is not moral or appropriate behavior even if it is not designed to be all encompassing of all social morality.

 

So, Renee....you had no choice in the race to which you were born. How does that relate to whom you choose to have sex with? It is about sex. There is nothing at all abhorant about having close relationships with members of the same sex.

 

Wrong.

Learn to read what is written, not what you think was written.

I do not and have not written that I condone bigotry.

I condone freedom and constitutional rights, including the Bill of Rights. If you allow people freedom, then you must accept that some people will not do what you personally want them to do, and that some people will offend you.

If you cannot tolerate a difference of opinion and thought, and respect peoples rights, and want to force people to think and behave as you desire, then you are a totalitarian.

That is not justification for trampling everyone's rights.

That's is also not justification for trampling everyone's rights. You wanting to abolish religion is no different than the govt forcing you to attend church every Sunday.

Jim Crow was govt imposed racism. And it was overthrown by the people, not the govt. The govt had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acting, and it was a response forced on it by the people.