Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Perhaps you ought to provide some example bigots for us to opine on. Of course you won't do that.The point of my example is that I oppose bigots on the basis of their bigotry. That opposition does not necessarily mean that I want any particular bigot wiped from the fact of the earth, or that I wouldn't listen to anything a bigot had to say. After all, even a stopped clock...But with regards to the expression of bigotry, yeah, I think I'm fairly consistent about that.

No, the battle for gay rights is not over. At least not here in the US.I'm sure there were better places to eat than the Woolworth's lunch counter back in the summer of 1960. Perhaps those college students should have just gone to the on-campus cafeteria to eat. After all, that was well past the point where 'separate but equal' was held not be a proper interpretation of the 14th amendment.I do get your point. But there is a limited amount of inconvenience and indignity anyone ought to have put up with from, particularly when the law is on your side. If anybody is going to be inconvenienced why should it be the purchasers?Assuming that such a choice does not require visiting 15 bakers to find such a vendor, or perhaps traveling 50 miles when there is a perfectly good baker down the road who happens to be an asshole, then yeah, I see your point, why not just patronize the friendly businesses? But frankly, I don't give a crap about a bigot's right to discriminate.

Or their misunderstanding of such...We've heard this excuse before.Segregation and God's Word - interracial marriage forbidden

quote:

---

The only true yardstick of segregation is not custom, opinion, nor court decree, but the inerrant Word of God.

​

Old Testament Reveals God's Creation and Separation of Races, Racial Purity; Forbidding, Punishing Intermarriage; God's Chosen Race.

​

....

​

Mixing Caused the Flood

​

Genesis 6:1-7 and they took them wives of all which they chose. The promiscuous co-habitation of sons of God (Seth's Godly line) with daughters of men (Cain's worldly line), resulted in breakdown of morality, provoking the Lord to destroy the earth by flood.

---

"Dogs". "Alcohol"Really Coyote. You think someone who does not tolerate dogs or alcohol is a bigot?Maybe they are silly, but not exactly a bigots in my opinion. Dogs and alcohol are excluded from lots of places except guide animals. Where did you get this idea from? Drinkers are a protected class? Or should be? Get a grip.You cannot smoke in my car for reasons I won't bother to recite or defend. The reasons might even be religious. Not bigotry by any definition.Those who won't serve Jews or gays are bigots. I don't see anyone saying anything different. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't believe that those four college students stumbled into Woolworth's by accident. They went there to make a point.

Lies? You're saying that nobody ever argued that racial purity was God's will? Wrong.Typical fundy. He/she is told to obey the law, and you'd think they'd been thrown to the lions the way they protest. Nobody is coming to beat you up Faith. Did you forget that you don't even own a business that allows you to discriminate? Yes, I am. But I am not a Christian bigot.

This is pretty much a lie. The didn't bake a cake they'd have baked for just about anyone else without asking a single religious question.Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your statement just a bit.

Interesting. So in this case, we don't just have a cake for a legal marriage, we have the law requiring a bakery to make a statement cake. Does that change the equation for anyone? I'm waffling a bit on that issue. Are there any non violent statements (other than Nazi sympathetic ones) that a bakery could refuse to print.

duplicate. Please ignoreEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm not asking about the legal test. My question was about your personal belief. Some of the rationale people give here about not baking gay wedding cakes don't really speak to the issue of making a protest cake. For example, I might not have a problem with a civil rights cake, or a 'Black and Proud' cake, but I might balk at some of the more extreme sentiments expressed by some even if the messages were not discriminatory. I might just not like cussin' words, yet the message, other than that might be perfectly acceptable.I don't think I have to print out all messages that are non-discriminatory. I just don't get to balk at messages for reasons that are illegal.My reason for excluding Nazis is that in some European countries, laws against Nazism trounce well over any free speech limit we are used to in the US. I just want to avoid that entire topic.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except I don't believe that to be what most people do. I believe many bakers draw a line somewhere regarding whose money they will take, and what messages they'd be willing to put on a cake. Only a few of those choices have anything at all to do with legal matters or discrimination.Laws against discrimination do not require me to bake a cake for R J Reynold's celebration of the 50th anniversary of Joe Camel, a mascot that was demonstrated in court as being intended for targeting kids as new smokers. I sincerely doubt that I'd accept their business. I'd be happy to tell the company how to find Tangle's shop.

Seriously. Isn't it kind of pointless to cite constitutional principles at someone who hates the first amendment as much as Faith does?If we let those guys keep extra money, they are just going to send it to ISIS, or even worse, tithe it to their church so that the Pope gets it. So yeah, tax them until they convert.[1][1] Sarcasm.

Yes, that's true. Faith is talking about removing limiting non-Fundy's in more ways than just office holding, but your point is well taken. Faith is wiping her butt with even older portions of the constitution.

In fact it does. Surely you are aware that the Christian colonies included colonies with religions that you denounce as non Christian. Is it beyond reason that people were aware of the danger of having one sect gain control of the reins of government and making life unlivable for the rest of the country. I cannot imagine the mess people like you would make of this world with your seeing demons behind every bad thing that happens and your admiration for the actions of King James. The result is pretty much the antithesis of freedom.There were certainly plenty of early examples of such things for the founding fathers to be fearful of. A lot of you pilgrims came here and immediately went about creating hell on earth. I'm quite sure that the provisions in the Constitution that deal limit such things are no accident.In my experience, people who manage to escape tyranny don't manage to avoid becoming tyrants when their time on top comes. I am fascinated by the ability of the founding fathers to avoid that trap. Absolutely amazing.Edited by NoNukes, : miscellaneous additions.

That's pretty f'ed up. Christians don't have to be whiny, hateful, people. The Bible does not describe Jesus as advocating whiny, hate filled, stone casting behavior. If "Christian" actually meant people who try to emulate Jesus, something I insist on, then I think you'd find Christians to be nothing short of amazing, although you might still find us a bit of a meddling bunch.I understand that the term Christian has been co-opted by some pretty hateful folks, but I am not willing to cede them the dictionary.