Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[nazz]

If the Basis was that the teachings of Westboro Baptist Church offend him, then the florist should be taken to court. And vice-versa.

Like I said. Discrimination is discrimination. The gay florist might not like westboro baptist church or what they preach, but he has no right to discriminate against them. That is why you have a 1st amendment, yes? Just as with the anti-gay christians, the christian florist would have to just deal with it.

Just like the schools and university the westboro baptist kids have attended have had to over the years.

Well there's where we disagree. As I said, I'm a libertarian.

 

[nazz]

If the Basis was that the teachings of Westboro Baptist Church offend him, then the florist should be taken to court. And vice-versa.

Like I said. Discrimination is discrimination. The gay florist might not like westboro baptist church or what they preach, but he has no right to discriminate against them. That is why you have a 1st amendment, yes? Just as with the anti-gay christians, the christian florist would have to just deal with it.

Just like the schools and university the westboro baptist kids have attended have had to over the years.

Let me ask another question. Should a gay sign maker be forced to make signs that read "God hates ****"? are you willing to take this that far?

 

[idav]

I guess you can just pretend there are business out there demanding such legal protection to refuse gays service on the basis on being gay.

You can pretend it won't happen. Reasoning could be the yuck factor, bringing god into it doesn't make a bit a difference.

 

[nazz]

You can pretend it won't happen. Reasoning could be the yuck factor, bringing god into it doesn't make a bit a difference.

Not saying it won't happen. I'm saying it HASN'T happened to my knowledge.

 

[idav]

Not saying it won't happen. I'm saying it HASN'T happened to my knowledge.

So what was the basis for chick-f-let's discrimination. You don't think owners of that mindset might want the legislation to do just that. Saying people won't take advantage of loopholes in law is a bit naïve, that's why we have lawyers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, for heaven's sake, of course not. I never even remotely suggested such a thing.

That's the implication. There are three - and only three - possibilities:

- all religious beliefs are protected.
- religious beliefs don't get any special protection at all.
- only some religious beliefs are protected, and which ones get protected is decided by the government.

You've argued against the first two options, so that only leaves the third... no?

 

[nazz]

So what was the basis for chick-f-let's discrimination. You don't think owners of that mindset might want the legislation to do just that. Saying people won't take advantage of loopholes in law is a bit naïve, that's why we have lawyers.

Excuse me, when did chik-f-let refuse gays service? I must have missed that.

 

[nazz]

That's the implication. There are three - and only three - possibilities:

- all religious beliefs are protected.
- religious beliefs don't get any special protection at all.
- only some religious beliefs are protected, and which ones get protected is decided by the government.

You've argued against the first two options, so that only leaves the third... no?

No, I argued no such thing. I argued for number one.

 

[nazz]

I'm sorry but it would not surprise me in the least if that happened.

don't be naive. There has been an active movement to limit the WBC's right to free speech.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

don't be naive. There has been an active movement to limit the WBC's right to free speech.

The biggest controversy with the WBC was whether they should be allowed to protest at funerals and so some states came up with laws against that.

 

[nazz]

The biggest controversy with the WBC was whether they should be allowed to protest at funerals and so some states came up with laws against that.

Which did limit their right to free speech

 

[nazz]

Let me ask another question. Should a gay sign maker be forced to make signs that read "God hates ****"? are you willing to take this that far?

anybody? are you consistent?

whatever you may think of me I am consistent.

 

[nazz]

And while we are at it why should we exempt ministers, rabbis, imams, etc from officiating at same sex weddings?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which did limit their right to free speech

Only as much as not allowing someone to yell fire in a crowded theater limits their free speech.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm of the opinion that private businesses should be able to choose who they wish to serve.

For example, a gay business owner should have the right to refuse service to a christian fundamentalist if he so desires.

 

[idav]

Excuse me, when did chik-f-let refuse gays service? I must have missed that.

That's not what I said. Your comment was guessing at the motives of people with that mindset.

 

[nazz]

Only as much as not allowing someone to yell fire in a crowded theater limits their free speech.

the reason you are not allowed to yell "fire" (if there is no fire) is due to the injury that would occur. The WBC is being limited simply because people consider their message offensive. Hardly the same thing.

 

[nazz]

That's not what I said.

then I don't know why you brought it up.

 

[nazz]

then I don't know why you brought it up.

but I'm glad you did in a way because it illustrates how successful a boycott can be. And that is what people should do if they don't like the idea of a business refusing to provide goods/services for a same sex wedding. Get enough people to join you and you can put that business out of business. THAT is a right I can fully support.

 

[idav]

then I don't know why you brought it up.

People or owners of that mindset would want the legislation to just that. To discriminate for being gay. When companies are being vocal about their opinions what is to stop them from using the law to take it further? What would be the basis for someone refusing service to homosexual, their race?