I don't think it contributes, but I don't think it detracts.

Post #386,809 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:48:41 PM Reply	I don't think it contributes, but I don't think it detracts. Again, we are not talking about the wholesale refusal of service here. Only the refusal of service for one particular event. My rights end at the tip of my nose. I ~~cannot~~ should not be allowed to coerce you into participating in all the events I deem right and proper should you choose to disagree with me. From my POV, that's the issue here: do private parties have the right to refuse to participate in events others determine to be right and proper. Similarly, can a pet shop owner refuse to sell a dog to a family from a culture that considers dog meat a delicacy? In this thread I've been "warned" that the slippery slope I'm on leads to Uganda's laws. I submit that the argument counter to mine is at least as slippery with respect to my pet shop owner as the one I'm accused of being on.
Post #386,811 by pwhysall 2/24/14 8:58:48 PM 2/24/14 8:59:49 PM Reply	again, let's do that 100% valid thought experiment As much as you want to pretend otherwise, homosexuality is 100% normal, 100% natural and so let's replace the word "gay" with "black" and see how it looks. You are going to need the mother of all cites to convince anyone otherwise, BTW. Stop focussing on the specifics of these two events and consider the ramifications of this legislation. From here, it looks like you're wilfully misunderstanding the situation in order to justify your own prejudices. Convince me otherwise? Edit: the Google keyboard is shit. Edited by pwhysall Feb. 24, 2014, 08:59:49 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,826 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:27:54 AM Reply	Don't get hung up on "normal". I'm using that in the sense that normal means "conforming to a regular pattern". That is, characteristic of typical. I mean it in the sense that it's not normal for a 20 year old to have hyperopia. By "not normal" I mean nothing more than "atypical." If it's less offensive, I'll use atypical instead.
Post #386,856 by pwhysall 2/25/14 12:51:29 PM Reply	nonsense Stop trying to force everyone into complying your outdated social norms. Gay is normal. Get the fuck over it. No one is forcing you to have gaysex or get gaymarried or indeed be fabulous in any way. All we want is for people who do want to have gaysex and gaymarriage and to be fabulous to have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. Your position is one of insidious enablement, quietly giving weight to those who think that it's perfectly fine to discriminate against gays, all the way along the continuum from not selling wedding flowers to beating them to death for not being attracted to the "correct" gender. It is indefensible.
Post #386,860 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:12:03 PM 2/25/14 1:16:30 PM Reply	Normal is the wrong word. You mean "broadly accepted." I actually don't have a problem with that nor would I argue that homosexuality is not now broadly accepted. But it remains atypical in the species. All this handwringing of "the reason they don't want to contribute" to an event. To hell with their reasons! I don't care what their reasons are. They should have the right to say, "No, I'm not participating/contributing to this or that" for any damned reason they want to give (or not). Everyone here seems perfectly content to let that right slip away, too. THAT is indefensible. Edit: clarity Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2014, 01:16:30 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,862 by Another Scott 2/25/14 1:18:15 PM Reply	Blue eyes are "atypical". Being over 2 meters tall is also. I really don't understand why you're continuing to walk farther and farther out on this plank. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,866 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:30:00 PM Reply	Sigh. The erosion of rights troubles me. It bothers me when a herd demands that everyone follow in their footsteps. Maybe it's because I've tended toward contrarianism since I was 10. But the right of the individual to stand against the herd and say, "No. That's not right and I'm not going along with it just because the majority believes it" has always been important to me. Even if that individual is wrong, he ought to have the right to follow his own conscience in all of his daily affairs. We've apparently legislated against that. And I'm troubled by it. The justices in the photographer's case apparently were convinced that the photographers were genuinely trying to follow their consciences. And the law thwarted them. While I'll have to admit that sacrificing one's convictions for the sake of commerce is the American Way, embracing that philosophy comes at great cost to the individual.
Post #386,873 by Another Scott 2/25/14 2:14:22 PM Reply	Businesses . are . different. There's nothing preventing Mr. Baker and Ms. Florist and Mr. Candlestickmaker from expressing their political and religious views about "others" away from their businesses. Even if that individual is wrong, he ought to have the right to follow his own conscience in all of his daily affairs. Don't you see the giant hole that you've made in civil society when you equate the conduct of a business with "all of his (private) daily affairs"? If you explicitly allow discrimination against gays (as much of this legislation explicitly (or nearly) does), it invites other carve-outs for other 'undesirables'. It's the same way that people who are against contraception have been acting. "Well, I'm not going to serve you because you refuse to sell your daughter into bondage/aren't circumsized/have pierced ears/live on the other side of the tracks/can't read/are a member of the wrong political party/didn't vote for my brother/etc., etc., etc." These public accommodation laws are in place for good reasons. How is a gay couple buying flowers or a cake hurting anyone? How is it destroying civilization any more than being a member of a church different than you? A person hurting others isn't "following their conscience". My $0.02. I think I'm done. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,876 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 2:57:38 PM Reply	Weddings.Are.Not.People. Where you see "discrimination against gays" I see "discrimination against gay weddings". Those two things are markedly different in my mind. I think you ought not be entitled to the former, but I think you should be entitled the latter. You don't. I do. We're not going to agree and that's okay. Now, I'm done. ;0)
Post #386,877 by Another Scott 2/25/14 3:00:10 PM Reply	(One more thing) Read the judge's decision again. They said they wouldn't sell them a civil union cake, either. It's not about a wedding, its about who the customers were. That's not permitted. You can have the last word. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,882 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 3:52:21 PM Reply	42. ;0)
Post #386,868 by boxley 2/25/14 1:30:49 PM Reply	then maybe find a profession that does not serve the public? We were in Philadelphia MS a few weeks ago. My wife forgot to pack her belt. I remembered a black owned store uptown that had all kinds of neat stuff. I was last there a few years ago. Apparently that business had folded and was an upscale boutique. This is 2014. The 6 white women in the store stared at us like we had 20 foot flames shooting out of our asses. I asked the lady behind the counter if they had any belts. She was flustered and stammered maybe, over there on the wall. My wife said, lets go. You could hear the yapping start as the door was closing. Apparently that is ok because they have the right to act like that. Walmart had belts with no issues selling it to us. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,871 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:55:47 PM Reply	No, that is NOT okay. I'm offended you'd suggest that I might think so.
Post #386,874 by boxley 2/25/14 2:34:20 PM Reply	what if 2 gay men went in? I would assume the same reaction why is it ok to do it to them? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,875 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 2:52:16 PM Reply	It isn't. I never said it was. That's wholesale discrimination. Not at all the same thing as not making a wedding cake or taking their wedding pictures for them.
Post #386,878 by folkert 2/25/14 3:08:46 PM Reply	Oh... I didn't kill them officer... the Handgun firing the bullets did. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Welcome to IWETHEY!