The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

But nobody has ever told gays they can't patronize a Christian business, and this lie just keeps getting falsely repeated. What Chrsitians cannot do is validate gay marriage, period. THAT's the only thing Christians can't do for gays , and for which they are asked to get it elsewhere. There are also gays who agree with this.

Well, in this case they did: Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal - BBC NewsIn this instance, would you say the Court got it right ?

That's the question I keep asking you, why do people have to put up with your name-calling and opinions about them personally. Why can't you just go with the evidence - actual evidence, not your silly videos. Get some statistics that support you. Respond to the actual evidence that is posted to you, instead of ignoring it and posting more silly videos. If you're going to insist on posting videos then they should be from known responsible news sources. Your conspiracy claims that all the governments and respectable news outlets of Europe are in cahoots are absurd. The people who actually live in Europe are also telling you you're wrong.--Percy

Like I really meant literally gone. Uh, yes they did. A number of states were considering legislation that would have restricted LGBT bathroom access. What really happened was that Trump issued an executive order rescinding the Obama guidelines that protected LGBT use of the restrooms of their gender identity. This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline. Like Faith, I think you need to look up totalitarianism. Laws affect people, that can't be helped, but it doesn't make a government or the political party in power totalitarian. The question is whether LGBT's should have the right to use the bathroom of their gender identity, or whether other people's right to have their bathroom used only by people of their physical sex overrides. Whichever way current law sways, neither side is totalitarian.--Percy

Faith writes:

quote:

---

But nobody has ever told gays they can't patronize a Christian business

---

Oh, yes, they have. People have been kicked out of businesses simply because the owners thought they were gay. They have been refused service because the owners thought they were gay.That's the entire point behind anti-discrimination law, Faith.Question: If your religion prevented you from "validating interracial marriage," would you be allowed to deny your services to an interracial couple?

quote:

---

What Chrsitians cannot do is validate gay marriage, period.

---

Huh? Unless you're a priest performing a sacrament for the couple, exactly how does a person "validate" anybody's marriage?Are you confusing providing a service to a couple that will be used in their marriage with "validating" it?I don't think you understand what that word means.

quote:

---

THAT's the only thing Christians can't do for gays , and for which they are asked to get it elsewhere.

---

Of course, but that doesn't let the business off the hook.If you go to a restaurant and they serve you spoiled food, you certainly don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You leave and go somewhere else.And you still call the health inspector and have them take action against the restaurant because they are not allowed to serve spoiled food.And they don't get to claim that their religious proclivities override the public safety laws regarding food preparation and service.So what makes you think that if a business that violates anti-discrimination laws gets to claim that their religious proclivities override the human rights of other people?It's really simple, Faith: If you open your business to the public, you are required to comply with all regulations for running a business and that includes the anti-discrimination laws. If you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up. If you cannot handle the idea of performing your services for the public, then you shouldn't have opened your business to the public. Instead, you should have remained a private contractor.Suppose you want to get your picture taken. You could go to Glamour Shots in the mall. They must take your picture. They are open to the public and they cannot deny you because of your religion. Remember, Faith, religion is one of the categories protected under anti-discrimination law.You could also try getting Anne Geddes to take your picture. She's a famous photographer. But, she can tell you no. Unlike Glamour Shots, she's not a public business but is, instead, a private contractor. She doesn't have to take your picture if she doesn't want to.

quote:

---

There are also gays who agree with this.

---

And there were slaves who didn't think there was a problem. Does that make slavery OK? There are any number of women who stay with their abusive husbands. Does that make their beatings OK?Should I be allowed to refuse you service based on your religion, Faith? Your race? Your sex? Your veteran status? Your disability?No?Then why do I get to do it based off your sexual orientation?

No Jim Crow Laws stipulated that all businesses had to be whites only. These laws did enforce discrimination in public accommodations -- but private businesses also had the liberty to only accept whites if they so chose, as Randall Kennedy alluded to in his essay "The Civil Rights Act's Unsung Victory":"The drive took us into territory that featured signs distinguishing 'colored women' from 'white ladies,' signs indicating whether a business served blacks, signs designating which toilets or water fountains or entrances African Americans were permitted to use. In those days it was legal throughout the Deep South for privately owned places of public accommodation to exclude people on the basis of race colored not allowed or to discriminate against them in other ways colored served only in the rear. This reality prompted Victor H. Green, of Harlem, to publish The Negro Motorist Green Book, a guide to establishments throughout the United States that served black travelers. He understood the anxiety that beset African Americans as they sought to obtain elementary decencies on the nation’s highways."The comparison, then, is entirely fair.

Bigots always have a justification. Nobody is a villain when they get to tell the story.

Historically, that isn't quite the way it happened. Businesses did not want to serve colored folks, and they and the rest of the citizens passed laws so that they did not have to do so. The result was that segments of the population could not do business in huge stretches of the cities and towns in which they lived.

New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:

---

"Take your business elsewhere" is the only response we need to this perceived discrimination.

---

So when trans people are arrested for using the correct bathroom, they're hallucinating it? They weren't actually arrested? They simply hyperventilated the cops coming in?Strange how "take your business elsewhere" was declared unconstitutional. Are you saying we should do away with anti-discrimination law? You *do* have the right to deny people on the basis of race, sex, religion, marital status, veteran status, etc.?Woolworth's was justified in their refusal to serve black people at the lunch counter?

quote:

---

Capitalists don't care about your religion or skin color, they just want your money.

---

Strange how all those capitalists seemed to think that the money of Jews and blacks wasn't any good.So we seem to have a problem: You think the world is populated with these automatons known as "capitalists," but that seems to conflict with the reality that the world is instead populated by things known as "humans" and they are known to be bigots.So what do we as a society do with that fact? Do we simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Tough"? Too bad if you're black or Jewish or gay or a woman. You need to find the mythical city of "Capitalism" that will stop discriminating against you. Of course, that doesn't address all the other places in life that are infected with bigotry such as the law, employment, housing, education, etc., but at least you can know that in "Capitalism," you're money will be good.Assuming you have any. The income inequality in "Capitalism" is quite disastrous, you know. You won't be one of the ones making any money there, after all.You go to a restaurant. They served you spoiled food. You certainly don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You leave and you go somewhere else.And you still call the health department. The restaurant is not allowed to serve spoiled food due to the regulations on food preparation and service. That's the contract that you signed by opening a restaurant. You don't get to claim, "They can go somewhere else," as a defense.So when you are denied service in violation of anti-discrimination laws, you go somewhere else.And you still call the business regulatory agency. The business is not allowed to discriminate due to the anti-discrimination laws. That's the contract that you signed by opening a business. You don't get to claim, "They can go somewhere else," as a defense.Your bigotry is showing.

Fine, we're bigots. Who cares any more what the idiot left call us? We know it's lies. God knows it's lies. Some day you'll know it too. The point remains: Christian businesses do not refuse gays because they are gay, they only refuse to do anything to validate a gay marriage.

This might not be correct. By no means do I know the details, but "separate but equal" was part of the Jim Crow laws, not that the "equal" part was much honored.--Percy

Hi Faith - you might have missed my previous post, but it includes a link to a story about a case where Christian hotel owners refused to allow a gay couple (note, not married) to stay in a room together. This is an example of the sort of thing we're talking about.Do you agree with the English Courts that they were wrong to do that ?(I'm not being confrontational with that question - I'm genuinely interested).

I don't know. Doesn't a business have a right to refuse service for whatever reason they want?But all I'm ever talking about is the effect of the legalizing of gay marriage on Christian businesses who won't honor it, because they took away that right from us. No reason for refusing service has been claimed, again, but special services for gay weddings.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This would be true if you're thinking of special cases such as establishments like bars when they have drunk patrons, but otherwise, no, not even in Merry Olde England.--Percy

Finally thinking it through, if their reasoning was that the Bible calls homosexual sex a sin and they don't want to be in th position of contributing to homolsexual sex, which of course a hotel would be in a way that a bakery or florist or photographer wouldn't, then I'd say yes the English courts are wrong, the hotel owners should not be required to violate their Christian conscience.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.