Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Don't be disingenuous. We've been invoking it for days. I won't play silly games with you. This lady is on the verge of losing her business, and possibly her freedom, and there out are cheering the thugocracy every step of the way. You make me sick.

 

You have atrocious syntax that makes your posts incomprehensible. Ask your 8th grade English teacher to tell you the problem with that sentence. Hint: you need another verb.

I don't care what you notice. You are siding with thugs of the state against an innocent individual who built a business and has hurt no one.

 

I wonder if you would have had such sympathy for restaurant owners refusing to sit blacks with whites or making them use separate water fountains?

I’m not being disingenuous, you stated you believed there was part of the constitution that overrules state law in regards to religion, I asked you to post it, you have refused. I am pretty sure the 1st amendment specifically mentions a limitation to congress and doesn’t mention the states.

I support equal rights for all, as long as one protected group exists all groups should be protected.
When no group exists that is specifically protected then that will be true equality.

I am not concerned if I make you nauseous. If you cannot justify your rationale that is on you.

 

It’s “incomprehensible” yet you seem to be understanding my point enough that it makes you sick. Interesting.

Would you like me to post the definition of incomprehensible for you?

 

No, that part of your post is gibberish. The rest is chillingly thuggish.

Now go find a little old lady to pick on. I'm tired of you.

 

That does not address anything I asked.

 

It shows a complete lack of integrity on your part to skip posts of mine that indicate that isn’t my intent, just equality. Not that I expect anything different.

Whatever helps you reconcile your narrative I guess.

Cheers

 

To be sure. OTOH, discrimination, when used with discrimination, is very Christian indeed.

lol

Had you a clue about Christianity, you'd know it doesn't matter a lick.

That would be between the pharmacist, the grocer and God; but regardless, such refusal of service should not be prohibited by law, any more than should any other exercise of the freedom to associate.

 

That would be between the pharmacist, the grocer and god?

So a gay man who works and pays his taxes should be refused food and medicine?

 

What is there, an echo in here?

What I said was perfectly clear.

 

You sure don't understand the Constitution. BTW, the child sacrifice you refer to is called abortion.

 

It's called a domestic partnership.

 

Apology accepted.

Areas such as what?

Well churches can get away with it in a way that businesses can't, by losing customers over discriminatory practice. Anyway, I imagine that these churches are very few and very far between and they can certainly not be used to judge the culture at large, which is NOT racist.

Would human waste such as this even be capable of being in business? You're not being realistic.

So you've given a legal argument, which of course cannot be disagreed with. Yes, it's the law. Now how about answering this: why should businesses have to pay for something that they cannot afford? Note, the question is NOT, how are businesses obligated by law to pay for something that they cannot afford.

 

According to you?

 

It is clear that you missed this:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-couple-in-wa.557017/page-21#post-1070661851

What the hell is that?

 

No, I understand perfectly well that "like a change" and "changed" are NOT the same! Apparently you do not!

 

Better to marry THE SAME SEX?

 

Do you know why ANY state saw fit to enact the law in the first place?

 

Your opinion is not shared by many.

Non-discrimination laws exist, and such protections are supported by the American people.

E.g.,

 

You mean to prevent discrimination against homosexuality, or in general? No I haven't, as regards the former. Racial discrimination in the deep south where I grew up was such that you essentially had a policy of apartheid. Blacks could not use restrooms or eat in restaurants accessible by roads that they had contributed to in terms of taxation.

I hate laws as a general rule, but I am skeptical whether market forces would have, in time, corrected this, and it needed to be changed.

Gays were pretty much left alone, and honestly I still don't know what their complaint is. There were anti sodomy laws, but they were not enforced. Their was some teasing of sissified boys who were probably closeted gays, but there was no serious bullying. (The girls would not have tolerated it, LOL. Really, they would not have.)

Literally no merchant in my redneck town refused services to gay people. And, indeed the most successful photography shop in town was run by a lesbian couple. No one cared.

 

According to reality.

 

YOUR reality.

 

Right. English is hard for you. We get it.

 

I don’t have my own reality. There is only 1 reality.

 

And in that reality "like a change" and "changed" are NOT the same!