Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[SteveRogers]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

That analogy fails on every level. Did the Muslim or Jewish communities in America ever spend decades petitioning their state legislatures and pouring millions into ballot initiatives for the purpose of stripping basic civil rights and other privileges from bacon-eaters on account of their moral disdain for eating bacon?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

That analogy fails on every level. Did the Muslim or Jewish communities in America ever spend decades petitioning their state legislatures and pouring millions into ballot initiatives for the purpose of stripping basic civil rights and other privileges from bacon-eaters on account of their moral disdain for eating bacon?

That post assumes that SSM is a civil right.

[ProudModerate2]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

No it doesn't apply you idiot. You're conflating decades of oppression based on sexual orientation worth religious dietrary restrictions. You sound like an utter moron.

I agree. This dude is way out there.
Representative Carpetbagger, why don't you move to China .... I hear they have better rights there, than they do here in the US. You can tell us about it, once you get there.

[SteveRogers]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

That analogy fails on every level. Did the Muslim or Jewish communities in America ever spend decades petitioning their state legislatures and pouring millions into ballot initiatives for the purpose of stripping basic civil rights and other privileges from bacon-eaters on account of their moral disdain for eating bacon?

That post assumes that SSM is a civil right.

Indeed it does. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. But you can call it whatever you want. The point is that it wasn't enough for bigots to express moral disapproval of SSM. They actively sought to use the power of the state to keep priveleges that they enjoyed away from the group they disapproved of. That's the harm that bigotry does to society, and that's where your dumb analogy falls apart.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

That analogy fails on every level. Did the Muslim or Jewish communities in America ever spend decades petitioning their state legislatures and pouring millions into ballot initiatives for the purpose of stripping basic civil rights and other privileges from bacon-eaters on account of their moral disdain for eating bacon?

That post assumes that SSM is a civil right.

Indeed it does. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. But you can call it whatever you want. The point is that it wasn't enough for bigots to express moral disapproval of SSM. They actively sought to use the power of the state to keep priveleges that they enjoyed away from the group they disapproved of. That's the harm that bigotry does to society, and that's where your dumb analogy falls apart.

SCOTUS changes its decisions.  Earlier it had unanimously decided against SSM having any connection to interracial marriage (Baker v. Nelson).

The Obergefell decision was based on the misunderstanding that Loving v. Virginia was ultimately case about marriage that just happened to also be about race.  In reality, it was all about racial discrimination and marriage just happened to be the issue where racial discrimination was being applied.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is, my progressive friends, what we have here is a classic example of how different people view rights. Do they view them as negative rights, where only those actions which can cause tangible harm are regulated by government or as positive rights where government regulates more broadly to in some sense maximize societal good and government decides issues such as whether the personal insult suffered by a particular baker who refuses to make a wedding cake for a particular couple but is forced to do so against their beliefs outweighs the personal insult suffered by a particular couple who is refused service by a particular baker.

For any one particular incident of this type, all that's involved is personal insult, not tangible harm. For those who view rights via the lens of negative rights, then civil rights laws that impact the ability of private individuals to decide what commerce they engage in are justifiable not by the existence of occasional bigots engaging in actions but whether collectively there are enough bigots to make it materially impactful upon others trying to engage in actions such as obtaining a wedding cake. While we've certainly heard multiple stories of this type, I have yet to hear of a U.S. homosexual couple being unable to obtain a wedding cake at all, just not from the particular baker they'd hoped to procure it from. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted at a time when there was such a multitude of bigots not only refraining from engaging in commerce with minorities, but acting to prevent others from doing so that even under the narrow lens of negative rights, the law could be easily justified as needed. That's not the case for wedding cakes for gay couples.  Any justification for requiring bakers to bake cakes they don't want to bake will need to be found under the doctrine of positive rights.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't address positive rights. I would argue that under the 10th Amendment, issues addressed by the doctrine of positive rights are up to State governments to decide, so long as they don't impinge upon the negative rights protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Since the law in question is a State law, overturning it in Federal court will require showing a tangible harm that would be done the baker by forcing him to bake the cake, which I doubt can be done. Hence, while I think the law could easily be struck down under the 10th Amendment were it a Federal law, as a State law I don't see a Federal Case to be made against it. It's well within State powers to weigh the relative merits of the two potential personal insults. Both this State law and a State law giving bakers the precedence in such cases are both valid under the U.S. constitution.

[SteveRogers]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

Is not a law requiring private individuals who engage in the profession of baking to make wedding cakes for anyone an imposition of a belief and prejudice? Just because it's a belief you hold doesn't make it not a prejudice.

[Santander]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

[Daniel909012]

“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Therefore do not become partners with them;

Witnesses of jehovah have won much more controversial cases, this case is earned by the Christian.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

[Dr. Arch]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

[Dr. Arch]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

[Devout Centrist]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

No it doesn't apply you idiot. You're conflating decades of oppression based on sexual orientation worth religious dietrary restrictions. You sound like an utter moron.

The baker was not oppressing anyone.

That's not the point, buddy. You're more obtuse than a donkey.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

There are two biological sexes male and female, and each biological sex has a corresponding gender.  And gender is colloquially used as a synonym for sex.

Gender as different from sex is only useful in linguistics.  For instance, Latin, German, and Russian have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Spanish and Portuguese only have masculine and feminine.  Other languages have no grammatical gender.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

No it doesn't apply you idiot. You're conflating decades of oppression based on sexual orientation worth religious dietrary restrictions. You sound like an utter moron.

The baker was not oppressing anyone.

That's not the point, buddy. You're more obtuse than a donkey.

Well, people seem to be implying that the bakers are somehow the oppressors in this story when people are trying to take their livelihoods away.

[Dr. Arch]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

There are two biological sexes male and female, and each biological sex has a corresponding gender.  And gender is colloquially used as a synonym for sex.

Gender as different from sex is only useful in linguistics.  For instance, Latin, German, and Russian have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Spanish and Portuguese only have masculine and feminine.  Other languages have no grammatical gender.

There are far more grammatical genders than just those three, and those span further than the few languages listed there. However, grammatical gender is not the same as social gender.

Social gender is assigned by society according to sex and expectations, yes, but practically nobody behaves on the extremes of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum and is not absolute (e.g. you can usually say that someone is more masculine or feminine than someone else. Counter actively, there can also be the case when you can't tell a person's gender at all because it doesn't fall under your binary understanding of society's traditional conception of gender).

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

There are two biological sexes male and female, and each biological sex has a corresponding gender.  And gender is colloquially used as a synonym for sex.

Gender as different from sex is only useful in linguistics.  For instance, Latin, German, and Russian have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Spanish and Portuguese only have masculine and feminine.  Other languages have no grammatical gender.

There are far more grammatical genders than just those three, and those span further than the few languages listed there. However, grammatical gender is not the same as social gender.

Social gender is assigned by society according to sex and expectations, yes, but practically nobody behaves on the extremes of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum and is not absolute (e.g. you can usually say that someone is more masculine or feminine than someone else. Counter actively, there can also be the case when you can't tell a person's gender at all because it doesn't fall under your binary understanding of society's traditional conception of gender).

There are certain behaviors society considers masculine and others that society considers feminine.  But a tomboy is still a girl and a girly man is still a man.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

There are two biological sexes male and female, and each biological sex has a corresponding gender.  And gender is colloquially used as a synonym for sex.

Gender as different from sex is only useful in linguistics.  For instance, Latin, German, and Russian have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Spanish and Portuguese only have masculine and feminine.  Other languages have no grammatical gender.

There are far more grammatical genders than just those three, and those span further than the few languages listed there. However, grammatical gender is not the same as social gender.

Social gender is assigned by society according to sex and expectations, yes, but practically nobody behaves on the extremes of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum and is not absolute (e.g. you can usually say that someone is more masculine or feminine than someone else. Counter actively, there can also be the case when you can't tell a person's gender at all because it doesn't fall under your binary understanding of society's traditional conception of gender).

There are certain behaviors society considers masculine and others that society considers feminine.  But a tomboy is still a girl and a girly man is still a man.

And you're still a bigot justifying it with your religion.  Your heart is hard.  God has much more to say about that than the fairyboys you hate.

If your response be "I don't hate anyone"...prove it.

[Badger]

Usual responses from The Usual Suspects is.... Well, this thread is now a stupidity sewer

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

There are two biological sexes male and female, and each biological sex has a corresponding gender.  And gender is colloquially used as a synonym for sex.

Gender as different from sex is only useful in linguistics.  For instance, Latin, German, and Russian have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Spanish and Portuguese only have masculine and feminine.  Other languages have no grammatical gender.

There are far more grammatical genders than just those three, and those span further than the few languages listed there. However, grammatical gender is not the same as social gender.

Social gender is assigned by society according to sex and expectations, yes, but practically nobody behaves on the extremes of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum and is not absolute (e.g. you can usually say that someone is more masculine or feminine than someone else. Counter actively, there can also be the case when you can't tell a person's gender at all because it doesn't fall under your binary understanding of society's traditional conception of gender).

There are certain behaviors society considers masculine and others that society considers feminine.  But a tomboy is still a girl and a girly man is still a man.

And you're still a bigot justifying it with your religion.  Your heart is hard.  God has much more to say about that than the fairyboys you hate.

If your response be "I don't hate anyone"...prove it.

You are the one accusing me of hate, you are the one who has to provide proof.  What have I posted that is evidence of me hating anyone?  I believe hate is a sin.

[Idaho Conservative]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

Yes, I can understand Concept in principle, however to apply that in practice to public businesses being able to deny services on the base of race is, I reiterate f****** stupid. Reread The Heart of Dixie case and realize this country and its free market economy are much much stronger due to a robust reading of the Commerce Clause.

 How in the name of bleeding Christ anyone can believe otherwise, morally, legally, philosophically, or for s**** and grins, after 50 years of the most patently indisputably successful and Society improving decision that the Congress and Supreme Court have ever put into action, at least during the century, is unreal to me.

For folks who do so saying I'm not racist I'm just very libertarian and my view of what government can restrict, your little better than a cross burning Klansman. Weather One support for doing so is based on a speech by Lester Maddox or reading Ayn Rand, the end result is still every bit as ugly, an American, and frankly anti-free Enterprise. The ability of consumers to freely choose goods and services is the basis of the free market according to Adam Smith, people not just the right of businesses to be dicks to people who don't look like them and their family. Barry Goldwater may get venerated now and again because he moderated and was willing to tell Jerry Falwell on the religious right to go to hell, and even though he probably didn't have a racist bone in his body, at least compared to any other man of his age in generation, he was still the racist best friend in government for his pushing a dead wrong policy.

And what the heck is a "public business"?  If I own a store, I is my property and not public in any way.  You saying the right to refuse service to and one, the right to own one's labor=racism shows profound ignorance on your part.  And you are a Republican? 

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.