Do you think we will ever see this happen?

[nikolai_42]

We've already had the prosecution of several businesses run by Christians that have refused to serve homosexuals for their weddings. One might draw the conclusion from that that the business owner doesn't have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. But since the supposed rights of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority are what is really the issue, how long before we see someone sued for NOT buying from a business run by a homosexual? Is this a possibility? Granted, the situation would have to be a bit more forced since a business cannot force a potential customer to buy anything - but if it were perceived that someone decided to buy from another business for that reason alone, might we see a suit claiming that the business owner was being discriminated against monetarily (lost money simply because they are homosexual)?

Since we went down the rabbit hole, I have a hard time discounting the possibility of anything...

 

[fishrovmen]

We've already had the prosecution of several businesses run by Christians that have refused to serve homosexuals for their weddings. One might draw the conclusion from that that the business owner doesn't have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. But since the supposed rights of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority are what is really the issue, how long before we see someone sued for NOT buying from a business run by a homosexual? Is this a possibility? Granted, the situation would have to be a bit more forced since a business cannot force a potential customer to buy anything - but if it were perceived that someone decided to buy from another business for that reason alone, might we see a suit claiming that the business owner was being discriminated against monetarily (lost money simply because they are homosexual)?

Since we went down the rabbit hole, I have a hard time discounting the possibility of anything...

Unfortunately, the way things are going I wouldnt doubt it, nor be surprised if it did happen

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Then boycotts would be illegal, generally speaking.

 

[TracerBullet]

We've already had the prosecution of several businesses run by Christians that have refused to serve homosexuals for their weddings.

A business treating everyone, even minorities, with dignity and respect is "persecution"?

One might draw the conclusion from that that the business owner doesn't have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. But since the supposed rights of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority are what is really the issue,

 

[Tinark]

how long before we see someone sued for NOT buying from a business run by a homosexual?

:rotfl:

 

[moparguy]

We've already had the prosecution of several businesses run by Christians that have refused to serve homosexuals for their weddings. One might draw the conclusion from that that the business owner doesn't have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. But since the supposed rights of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority are what is really the issue, how long before we see someone sued for NOT buying from a business run by a homosexual? Is this a possibility?

It's only one test case away.

I suspect it's more likely to happen with a moderately larger buyer than the average middle class buyer.

The underlying legal principal that's actually at work is "whatever can be gotten away with" in the pursuit of satisfying legal anarchist's desires.

I suspect it is more likely to see "hate" crimes laws, like those in europe and canada passed here, being used as excuses to oppress anyone who dares to disagree with the vogue forms of sexual anarchism, before we will see such a "forced to buy" case.

Such laws would really mean all bets are off, as a slimy politician (double negative there) could find a way to get the nsa/fbi/you name it databases setup to "flag" anyone who didn't fall into line. These databases are already being illegally laundered down to local PD's for the war on drugs; it's called parallel construction.

 

[moparguy]

A business treating everyone, even minorities, with dignity and respect is "persecution"?

Shame that you don't give people enough dignity and respect to stop you from stooping to using them as emotional ammunition for irrational reasons.

The people that have been legally and socially oppressed because they refused to violate their consciences by doing what they perceived would place their approval on sexual anarchism haven't been disrespectful, or treated their customers without dignity.

It's nothing more than overgrown toddlers who can't handle their choices, behavior, and way of thinking being disagreed with. They never grew up; they're immature.

Besides which, respect and dignity mean nothing coming from the sexual anarchist side; they refuse to treat those who merely disagree with them with dignity, or respect. Quite often, not even with mere common human decency.

 

[republicanchick]

We've already had the prosecution of several businesses run by Christians that have refused to serve homosexuals for their weddings. One might draw the conclusion from that that the business owner doesn't have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. But since the supposed rights of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority are what is really the issue, how long before we see someone sued for NOT buying from a business run by a homosexual? Is this a possibility? Granted, the situation would have to be a bit more forced since a business cannot force a potential customer to buy anything - but if it were perceived that someone decided to buy from another business for that reason alone, might we see a suit claiming that the business owner was being discriminated against monetarily (lost money simply because they are homosexual)?

Since we went down the rabbit hole, I have a hard time discounting the possibility of anything...

Are pastors/ministers going to be forced to marry gays?

I don't see why they would NOT be.

We see how much respect the liberal-in-chief has for religious institutions



+++

 

[republicanchick]

A business treating everyone, even minorities, with dignity and respect is "persecution"?




[wordpress.com/2007/11/jimcrow.jpg[/IMG]

yeh, i can see where Blacks have so much in common with perverts

yeh...


___

 

[nikolai_42]

A business treating everyone, even minorities, with dignity and respect is "persecution"?

That is a false comparison. Behavior and skin color are two entirely different bases on which to deny someone something. We deny (or at least used to) those with criminal records the right to become police officers or lawyers. Clearly, this poses a potentially direct conflict of interest. Many stores have the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" standard for who they will even allow in their store. There are clear behavioral (i.e. health and decency) issues involved.

So when a bakery run by someone who has a deeply held conviction that a certain behavior is wrong refuses to serve someone whose purchase clearly and directly supports said behavior, they are not denying the person access to the store - nor are they denying them the right to buy a cake - they are merely denying them the right to force the store to actively participate in the celebration of what they hold is just wrong. Were the same people to buy the cake from the store and take it elsewhere to have it decorated, there would be no such direct connection.

So no individuals are being denied access to the store or the products based on who they are, but rather on what they do. A homosexual buying a birthday cake is not the same thing as a homosexual buying a cake decorated to celebrate what is being called "gay marriage".

The supposed race equivalence is just plain fallacious.

 

[nikolai_42]

:rotfl:

You laugh - and it may not even be a big deal to you were it to happen - but all bets are off now.

 

[nikolai_42]

Then boycotts would be illegal, generally speaking.

When the ends justify the means, anything is considered acceptable.

 

[patrick jane]

We've already had the prosecution of several businesses run by Christians that have refused to serve homosexuals for their weddings. One might draw the conclusion from that that the business owner doesn't have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. But since the supposed rights of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority are what is really the issue, how long before we see someone sued for NOT buying from a business run by a homosexual? Is this a possibility? Granted, the situation would have to be a bit more forced since a business cannot force a potential customer to buy anything - but if it were perceived that someone decided to buy from another business for that reason alone, might we see a suit claiming that the business owner was being discriminated against monetarily (lost money simply because they are homosexual)?

Since we went down the rabbit hole, I have a hard time discounting the possibility of anything...

yeah, the mafia does that already - "buy from us or bad things happen" - it works ! ! ! -


View attachment 19860

 

[Jose Fly]

Yet another thread where conservative Christians line up and demonstrate why they keep losing these cases in court.

 

[TracerBullet]

Shame that you don't give people enough dignity and respect to stop you from stooping to using them as emotional ammunition for irrational reasons.

The people that have been legally and socially oppressed because they refused to violate their consciences by doing what they perceived would place their approval on sexual anarchism haven't been disrespectful, or treated their customers without dignity.

Just like these good people

It's nothing more than overgrown toddlers who can't handle their choices, behavior, and way of thinking being disagreed with. They never grew up; they're immature.

Yes that is an apt description of those who choose to discriminate while trying to justify their behavior by holding up a bible.

Besides which, respect and dignity mean nothing coming from the sexual anarchist side; they refuse to treat those who merely disagree with them with dignity, or respect. Quite often, not even with mere common human decency.

No one cares about disagreeing, the problem occurs when those who "disagree" choose to discriminate.

 

[Totton Linnet]

They are teaching in schools that homosexuality is an alternative but normal expression of love. They have won the day.

 

[TracerBullet]

That is a false comparison.

Nonsense. Business owners in the segregated south firmly believed that they should have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. These simple and basic rights were denied them thanks to the efforts of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority.

Behavior and skin color are two entirely different bases on which to deny someone something. We deny (or at least used to) those with criminal records the right to become police officers or lawyers. Clearly, this poses a potentially direct conflict of interest.

And neither skin color or orientation are behaviors

Many stores have the "No shoes, no shirt, no service" standard for who they will even allow in their store. There are clear behavioral (i.e. health and decency) issues involved.

What one wears and does not wear has nothing to do with a business choosing to discriminate because a shirtless person can just put on a shirt. But a minority just can't stop being a minority

So when a bakery run by someone who has a deeply held conviction that a certain behavior is wrong refuses to serve someone whose purchase clearly and directly supports said behavior, they are not denying the person access to the store - nor are they denying them the right to buy a cake - they are merely denying them the right to force the store to actively participate in the celebration of what they hold is just wrong. Were the same people to buy the cake from the store and take it elsewhere to have it decorated, there would be no such direct connection.

Racists have deeply held convictions and religious beliefs that blacks are marked by God to be sub-servant and socially inferior to Caucasians too. Why should they not have the right to refuse service to those they believe to be inferiors?

Buss companies didn't deny blacks the right to ride the bus. They were merely denying them the right to force the bus company to actively participate in the celebration of what they hold is just wrong. (racial equality).
Those blacks upset about having to sit in the back of the bus could have always taken a taxi.

So no individuals are being denied access to the store or the products based on who they are, but rather on what they do. A homosexual buying a birthday cake is not the same thing as a homosexual buying a cake decorated to celebrate what is being called "gay marriage".

The supposed race equivalence is just plain fallacious.

I recognize that you want to be seen as morally superior to people like racists but you aren't. The actions of a baker who denies a service to a same gendered couple is no different from a baker who denies a service to an interracial couple.

 

[TracerBullet]

They are teaching in schools that homosexuality is an alternative but normal expression of love. They have won the day.

Truth usually does win the day

 

[shagster01]

They are teaching in schools that homosexuality is an alternative but normal expression of love. They have won the day.

Instead of what, Totton's view?

 

[nikolai_42]

Nonsense. Business owners in the segregated south firmly believed that they should have a choice as to who he or she (or whatever) will or will not serve. These simple and basic rights were denied them thanks to the efforts of a particularly vocal (and aggressive) minority.


And neither skin color or orientation are behaviors

Really? If I have an orientation towards killing others, that's not behavior? If I have an orientation to abuse little children, is that not a behavior? One's skin color is not an orientation. Even heterosexuality is an orientation. Christianity teaches that it is the only correct sexual orientation. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are forced to engage in sexual activity. One can decide to abstain. One cannot abstain from being black. The categories just don't mix.

In addition, being black does not necessitate any specific activity.

What one wears and does not wear has nothing to do with a business choosing to discriminate because a shirtless person can just put on a shirt. But a minority just can't stop being a minority.

Exactly.

Racists have deeply held convictions and religious beliefs that blacks are marked by God to be sub-servant and socially inferior to Caucasians too. Why should they not have the right to refuse service to those they believe to be inferiors?

Buss companies didn't deny blacks the right to ride the bus. They were merely denying them the right to force the bus company to actively participate in the celebration of what they hold is just wrong. (racial equality).
Those blacks upset about having to sit in the back of the bus could have always taken a taxi.

I recognize that you want to be seen as morally superior to people like racists but you aren't. The actions of a baker who denies a service to a same gendered couple is no different from a baker who denies a service to an interracial couple.

Your assumed ability to read the mind of someone who disagrees with you shows that the basis of your argument is far more emotional than logical. Why not take that statement to its logical conclusion? Do you want to be seen as morally superior to Hitler because you didn't attempt to commit genocide? Do you want to be seen morally superior to Ken Lay and the criminals that stole from investors and employees at Enron? Do you want to be seen as morally superior to someone walking around in a white sheet and burning crosses and preaching white superiority?

To argue that one wants to feel morally superior mixes motives with objective right and wrong - or at least with the written law. Homosexuality is wrong. If something is wrong then to be against it is not the same thing as wanting to feel morally superior. It is simply a matter of whether one wants to support that which is contributing to moral anarchy.