This is why you will be victorious in the tourney.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

_________________

That isn't really what it is about though.

It is about refusing to provide the SAME services to gay people. If your business wants to deny all sexual cakes or racist cakes then you can. You can't do it only for gay people though. If I offer cakes that say "Man + Woman" I have to also provide cakes that say "Man + Man" or "Woman + Woman". There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, churches aren't a business and aren't "for profit"(legally at least) so it isn't relevant to them. I probably would have been denied being in a Catholic church for not being Catholic enough. The gay couple probably would have been too for the same reason.

It's really simple. A business has to follow rules to exist and we as a society have decided that the rights of people not to be segregated is more important than the rights of people to segregate.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

/thread

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

That's true enough, but you and I are reasonable people. That isn't going to stop an unreasonable gay person from making an issue of it. I don't get why anyone would want to do business with someone who didn't want to do business with them. I can find someone who isn't a douchebag to buy stuff from.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

If you want to deny services to people you better be ready to defend the reasoning though.

But, as I said too, churches are "non profit".

It's similar to how private clubs can deny whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

Someone who is making money offering a public service needs to be held to a different standard.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It won't stop there though.

Btw, can we count on you to stay up and provide rides to the homeless overnight?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... s-services

_________________

What does that have to do with anything?

Do Catholics only do charity because they can deny gay people services and churches are tax exempt?

It's sad that Catholics would stop doing charity if they didn't get benefits for it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The homeless people get the benefit. Or are you unable to understand that?

_________________

What?

Why did you mention that JORR would have to give rides to the homeless?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

So now you understand that the homeless people are the beneficiaries of the program?

_________________

just make a sign. we don't make gay cakes for gay or straight people. problem solved.

and only stock dude and lady toppers. sorry we had to cut back inventory. we literally don't stock that part. i can't demand my local grocery store stock "x" product. i have to go find it somewhere else.

loopholes.

If churches weren't tax exempt, or if Catholics had to provide business services to gay people would they stop?

I mean, if your point is that Catholics do charity work, then yeah, they do, but so do a lot of non-Catholics.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Is there an answer to my question somewhere in your answer Brick?

_________________

I'll answer your question when you answer my two questions that I asked first.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I feel my post may have been slightly misinterpreted by a couple here...
I'm not blaming catholics. I'm blaming religious idiots. I was just saying the Catholic part to put into context why I've been disgusted by religion as a former Catholic.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

You can blame the Pope, or at least previous Popes that continue to perpetuate the ideas that lead to things like this.

The Pope could, and should, come out today and say that denying services to anyone based on sexual preference is wrong. Until then, the "good Catholics" get swept up with the "bad Catholics" who are just following the direction of the Pope.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I understand Darko there. What happens though is Brick or others different times then goes on some anti Catholic thing working out issues on a law in Mississippi where there are hardly any Catholics.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I don't get it.

Catholics would and do support this just like the others do. Seacrest will actively defend it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Wrong. Catholics have been against the paying for birth control paid for in their work places. They have said no marriage ceremonies in their church which is their right. You even posted that. In this thread there is not any shred of evidence that any Catholics whatsoever are involved.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I would bet that Catholics would be less in favor of this type of legislation than the rest of the population. Look at the most Catholic states...Mass, NJ, IL, NY...all Democratic strongholds! All the nutty places..Miss, NC, IND, etc. etc........NO Catholics!!

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

You've been here long enough to know that Brick will state a false premise and beat it to death.

I've had and continue to have gay clients.

Brick isn't really interested in having a debate. He comes here to try and resolve his personal issues with the Catholic Church. He shows up every time one of these threads is started. It goes to show the wrestling match in his mind continues. That is a good thing.

_________________

I'm using the words and actions of the Pope, who I believe is considered fairly important in the Catholic Church.

When the Pope refers to "religious liberty" he is referring to this exact thing.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I was always taught the Pope was infallible in matters of faith and morals.

_________________

You of all people shouldn't be calling this a false premise. You, a Catholic, defend this practice more than anyone. Do you think the Mississippi law is wrong?
I don't have any personal issues with the Catholic church. I just disagree with many of the things they stand for.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

the pope is infallible in matters of church doctrine which he makes. so unless he is schizophrenic, he has to be infallible.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

bernstein isn't only one who can "evolve".

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

But there is a fine line in there. Consider a photographer, and someone wants to hire him to shoot their wedding, odds are he's going to catch more than a few glimpses of displays of affection. Now...what if he finds homosexual displays of affection disgusting and/or offensive? (Is that even allowed anymore?) Any gay couple that walks into his shop can compel him to shoot something he finds offensive? How far does that involuntary servitude (which is exactly what it is) go, then? Can they compel him to book their boudoir photo session? Does he have to host it in his studio?

And yeah, in this case my hypothetical photographer would have no problem with heterosexual displays of affection and boudoir shoots. So given your logic here, my photographer would be infringing on the rights of that homosexual couple, because they...have a right to his business? At certain junctures, a model such as yours falls completely apart and results in someone being in abject service of another.

The tricky part with any discussion of rights and legislation in this area is, that eventually, the government is going to compel someone to perform a service. And like it or not, that is a step (maybe a tiny step, maybe more) down the road to a beef with the 13th Amendment. Now, where do we as a society draw that line? Do we protect the bigoted diner owner from having to serve an omelette to people he suspects are gay or transgendered? That's a pretty easy question to answer (no). But, don't we at some point have to reasonably consider the rights of those being compelled to serve these "protected classes", particularly their Constitutional right to be free from involuntary servitude?

Well, we figured out in terms of race, so we can figure it out in the case of this. Unless of course you think the photographer should be able to deny interracial couples too. Many objected to that, and some still do. We ultimately decided that just doesn't matter.

So it's a slippery slope either way. It's better to side with equality.


Yes. That would infringe on the rights of the homosexual couple.



No, we side with equality for public business. It really isn't that hard. People literally said the same things when we decided that minorities and women deserved equal rights too. Society is better for it.

Just take your whole post, substitute black people, and see if ANY of those are valid concerns.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!