Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....

[GodFearinGunTotin]

True..There were some other reasons that we decided to not take the tax exempt status any longer..We are pretty political. We decided to just render to Caesar what belongs to him, and keep on speaking loudly.

I say "preach on" then, brother!

 

[PistolBob]

What a load of crap.

Probably extra load of crap and maybe a few loogies...that's gonna be one really tasty wedding cake.

 

[PistolBob]

So, what about signs saying "No Blacks Allowed", "No Jews Allowed", or "No Muslims Allowed", or "No Christians Allowed"?
Would that be ok?

.

Yeah. Why not? Customers are free to vote with their billfolds, and they will.

 

[88GT]

That is true..That is NOT true in a public place,funded by my tax dollars. I recently gave up a non-profit tax status for our church, because I will NOT tolerate intrusion of .GOV into our business. Most of us agree here.

What part of it is not true?

What private business is funded by your tax dollars?

 

[traderdan]

What part of it is not true?

What private business is funded by your tax dollars?

Indianapolis Colts...Stadiums built with public funds..No firearms??

 

[traderdan]

Many privately held businesses are enticed to specific locations..at the expense of the taxpayer..

 

[hornadylnl]

Many privately held businesses are enticed to specific locations..at the expense of the taxpayer..

So the bakery owner is a welfare queen?

 

[Bunnykid68]

So the bakery owner is a welfare queen?

Or owns a football team

 

[Steell]

Indiana version:

IC 22-9-1-2 Public Policy
It is the public policy of the state
to provide all of its citizens equal
opportunity for education, employment,
access to public conveniences and
accommodations, and acquisition through
purchase or rental of real
property, including but not limited
to housing, and to eliminate
segregation or separation based so
lely on race, religion, color, sex,
disability, national origin or ances
try, since such segregation is an
impediment to equal opportunit
y. Equal education and employment
opportunities and equal access to and
use of public accommodations and
equal opportunity for acquisition of real
property are hereby declared to be
civil rights

 

[88GT]

Indianapolis Colts...Stadiums built with public funds..No firearms??

First, I don't think anyone would disagree.

Second, if the best argument you have to defend your position requiring private businesses to respect and honor your rights is the introduction of a hybrid version of private/public, then you must not really have much of an argument. Let's ignore the hybrid model since it blurs the line between private and .gov.

Third, the abatement/deferment/crediting of taxes is not the same thing as publicly funded.

Fourth, you still haven't answered the question. What part of my statement is not true? If you step into my place of business, on what grounds do you justify your position that I have to do anything but let you live?

If your argument had any validity, I could come burn crosses or practice voodoo on your front lawn.

 

[88GT]

Indiana version:

Do you think this means that the state is limiting its discriminatory practices or that the state is requiring all of its citizens to be so limited?

 

[Steell]

I suppose this means that people here support doing away with domestic abuse and child abuse Laws? After all, if it happens on private property it's none of our business, right? What do you mean I can't build a meth lab right outside your bedroom window? It's on my property!
Get out of my store! I don't sell food to your kind, and no other store in town will either, You might as well move.

That crap is all just plain evil. You can support it all you want, but I'll stand against it.

 

[Steell]

Do you think this means that the state is limiting its discriminatory practices or that the state is requiring all of its citizens to be so limited?

It's fairly evident that it applies to the people that comprise the State of Indiana. I don't see how you think it's restricted to the State Government.

 

[88GT]

I suppose this means that people here support doing away with domestic abuse and child abuse Laws? After all, if it happens on private property it's none of our business, right? What do you mean I can't build a meth lab right outside your bedroom window? It's on my property!
Get out of my store! I don't sell food to your kind, and no other store in town will either, You might as well move.

That crap is all just plain evil. You can support it all you want, but I'll stand against it.

Yes, that's exactly what we're arguing.

Moreover, and it was already stated up thread, what is wrong shouldn't necessarily be illegal. Or I will find something you do, label it "wrong," and lobby the government to make it illegal. How does that suit your fancy?

 

[88GT]

It's fairly evident that it applies to the people that comprise the State of Indiana. I don't see how you think it's restricted to the State Government.

Evident? How so? Seems to me that it's referring to the state in it's actions. I don't see where it is limiting the behaviors of the citizens.

 

[traderdan]

First, I don't think anyone would disagree.

Second, if the best argument you have to defend your position requiring private businesses to respect and honor your rights is the introduction of a hybrid version of private/public, then you must not really have much of an argument. Let's ignore the hybrid model since it blurs the line between private and .gov.

Third, the abatement/deferment/crediting of taxes is not the same thing as publicly funded.

Fourth, you still haven't answered the question. What part of my statement is not true? If you step into my place of business, on what grounds do you justify your position that I have to do anything but let you live?

If your argument had any validity, I could come burn crosses or practice voodoo on your front lawn.

There IS no real argument that would require private businesses to respect my rights! My RIGHT is to refuse to do business with fools.
I will however state again, that if a business has been built with the assistance of public funding in ANY manner..it should operate in consistency with state law.

 

[PistolBob]

Why didn't the person being discriminated just go to another baker? While it is true the private business owner can do that, I wouldn't bring my money to him because he discriminates.

You discriminate every day, we all do and for our own reasons. Discrimination is not evil, if it's based on rational decision making. Only you can decide what is rational for you. I, on the other hand, would do business with them, but probably not just because they chose to not cater a same sex wedding, but probably because they have a lot of experience and satisfied customers. I have no issue with same sex unions, just don't call it a marriage and don't try to force my church to do them. The state does a lot of stupid things. As we all know.

 

[88GT]

There IS no real argument that would require private businesses to respect my rights! My RIGHT is to refuse to do business with fools.

But didn't you say up thread that businesses should have to honor your right to carry a firearm on their property?

I will however state again, that if a business has been built with the assistance of public funding in ANY manner..it should operate in consistency with state law.

Why do you keep bringing this up? This isn't about hybrid or .gov entities. This is about private property owners.

 

[traderdan]

I think you need to read more carefully...Yes, playing Devil's advocate I did say that! In an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of a state that invades private enterprise to protect the "rights" of homosexuals not to be offended...and does not protect the right of it's inhabitants to keep and bear arms without infringement.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

As a capitalist, I want your money for whatever goods/services I may provide. This is just good business, however I reserve the right not to provide my goods/services to whomever I choose for whatever reason. My property, my rules. If I don't want weapons on my property then no weapons. The inside of your vehicle is NOT my property, therefore it is not my decision as to whether or not you have a weapon in your vehicle. If you come into my business armed, I have the right to deny you service. You as a consumer have a choice, where to do business, if my rights violate your rights go somewhere else.

I am sick and tired of people thinking that their rights out weigh my rights. The first amendment gives me the right to say whatever I want to say, when I want to say it. It does not give you the right not to be offended by what I say.