Texas family: We’re getting death threats for not baking a cake for same-sex ‘marriag

Oh wanh. Poor widdle homohaters.

- - - Updated - - -

What a bunch of bullshevit.

- - - Updated - - -

People have gone tiddlywink bonkers.

 

Why did you choose your spouse?

 

I would take the position that private business owners should be able to choose who they want to business with. Whether it is innate or a choice.

 

Sure. If your business operated in a vacuum, you would be perfectly justified in thinking you should have complete control over all aspects of your business. But
part of the reason you are able to make money is that your business is interwoven in society's fabric. You are protected by police and laws. You are served by
utility companies and public infrastructure. You make money because you are part of this system, not despite it.

What happens when the private water company stops serving you because of the color of your hair or because you own a Glock instead of
a Smith and Wesson? What happens when the private trash collection agency stops collecting your trash because you go Church X instead of Church Y.
What happens to your business when the private electrical company decides that you can't be served because you have sex with the lights on?

 

So you believe business owners should have no rules regarding accommodation?
How about for disabled persons? People claiming religious affiliation?
Does going back to the days of white only fountains really make you feel were are going in the correct direction?

 

In contrast to something like race or sex, where it would be 100%.

 

Tomorrow, your electric service will be cut off because the electric company that services your area thinks your shirts are ugly.

 

I suspect if we eliminated all the laws on public accommodation, there might be 3 or 4 businesses, if that, with whites only water fountains. Couple of years of public shaming and even those would soon disappear.

 

she has money

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) em! there are a dozen providers I can purchase my electricity through.

 

You still didn't answer the question. Should religious exemptions and protections be removed? Or is the discriminatory utopia only against gay people?

What about minority populations that are generally not liked in a specific geographical location?
Should they just move?

 

Lucky you, unusual though.

We only have one provider.
Same for Cable.
Internet.
Healthcare.

And that's just the private company monopolies. I live in a pretty segregated area? Should all those companies be able to say " sorry, no power or Internet for blacks and gays"? It would probably be cheered by the locals.

 

So what is a Glock owner to do in these states that only prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older? Try to convince the state they are a homosexual glock owner and therefore entitled to protection?

 

Sorry, the first company has sent open letters to all in the area telling them you wear ugly shirts - they have publicly shamed you - and now the
other electric companies are asking themselves if they shouldn't refuse your service as well ... cause let's face it, you live in a town were having ugly
shirts is frowned upon - and now the public knows you belong to that wayward group of miscreants.

 

On any basis whatsoever.

 

No state has laws that protect those who choose to wear ugly shirts except for California. You would be out of luck in any other state on the basis of public accommodation laws. Convince the state you are a gay who wears ugly shirts, and in those states with laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and you could probably get a couple $100,000.

 

I get the impression you are trying to make a point, but cant imagine what it would be. No state other than California prohibits discrimination on the basis of ugly shirts. In Oregon, you would be out of luck on the basis of public accommodation laws. They only prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

Unless you happened to be a homosexual in an ugly shirt. Then it would be presumed that this bit about the ugly shirts is instead just a cover for the true, nefarious intent to exclude homosexuals.

 

You views are consistent and equally applied so I give you credit there.
It is a factor that is usually not seen by people arguing your position, one reason it is probably immediately discredited. While I would much prefer all be protected your position would be my second. If all are not protected then none should be.

 

Even physical (external) sex is not 100% is it? And aren't you aware that many African Americans used to "pass" as white during the last century? Sexual orientation/attraction is much harder to pin down in a study because there is SO much external pressure to conform to the acceptable orientation.

 

Cute. Now, again: why did you choose your spouse?

 

When have you ever advocated that everyone be protected? Your a fan of protection for only certain classifications of people, including homosexuals, with none for others.

 

Of course it is EVERY pair of identical twins are always of the same sex.

 

Always, I don't think individual groups should be protected; everyone should have equal rights, equal opportunity and equal access. Arbitrary discrimination is not in the best interest of our nation, we are better than that.

 

if you want to choose, open a private club for members only, not a business open to the public... simple

.

 

I thought that last time they were in the news their "go fund me" account was over $100,000.