- Jun 26, 2015
- 26,404
- 15,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Title II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Which laws are you referring to?
Upvote
0
Title II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Which laws are you referring to?
Comparing homosexuals to blacks is not only a bad
comparison, but it's insulting to blacks. They do not
choose their race.
Oh, now it's completely different. Back-peddling?
Very much less. Just as having a widespread outbreak of the flu, and then having it reduce to only a few cases in isolated areas makes it much less of a problem and easier to deal with.
Do you miss the "good ole days"?
I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.
Besides, you wouldn't want to be politically incorrect, would you?
Close. Both were created by God.
Perhaps you should look up that term before you erroneously use it again.
So what makes the flu that's only a few cases in isolated areas different from the flu that's in the wide spread outbreak?
Interesting fact: The flu is still the flu, no matter how many or how few people have it.
Just getting ready for the inevitable move there. If you're going to end up living in the past, you had best speak the language.
What do I care about political correctness? And more importantly, how long have you pretended to care about political correctness?
But the people who discriminate against them do choose to be Christian.
On another note, do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual? I don't.
Quit backpeddling and stick to the topic.
And yet the fewer people who have it, the less it affects society. That's what we're talking about here.
Does that mean you're going to start using the actual N word in addition to calling them coloreds? If you want to be so politically incorrect, it would be a way of "coming out of the closet".
I haven't started yet.
Yet the homosexual's choice to get "married" to one another is a choice. So is buying a "wedding" cake. So is suing the bakery's owner when they didn't get exactly what they wanted
Get it right and I'll stick to it.
It would stand to reason that the prudent thing to do would be to deal with those few isolated incidents before they become an epidemic... or is that too sensible for your liking?
Neither the Christians nor the Political Right have brought that one back into vogue yet... I'll wait.
Looks like a decent enough imitation of caring from here.
So were the "colored's" decision to sit down at that particular diner... or to marry that white person, knowing full well the law wasn't on their side in either case.
Hopefully while not pretending it's an epidemic even though it's just a few isolated cases.
Yet you're the one who's getting the ball rolling by calling black people "coloreds".
As are the decisions of people from some other countries who decide to evade the border patrol to sneak across the border and get a fake ID to live here.
Good question but totally irrelevant to this thread until you can identify what law was being broken.Why should he think that he would be required to create a cake to celebrate something that was not legal in his state?
Again, read your post. That is what I was responding to and objecting to.
This is a very specific law and you are saying that when he opened his business in the early nineties he should have known that it might happen and not have gone into this business?
I don't know if the person who rents an apartment can be different from the people who actually live there, but the person who goes into the baker's store to order a wedding cake does not have to be the one who is getting married.
The baker doesn't need to know the orientation of the customer buying them, he only needs to know what kind of wedding the wedding cake will be for.
So is suing the bakery's owner when they didn't get exactly what they wanted.
But you want to focus on the idea of people choosing to be a Christian. Interesting.
The activity of the customer is only solely determined by that identity because the customer identifies themselves as that activity. So if a person identifies themselves as stealing, he can always argue that whoever disagrees with stealing is discriminating against them because of their identity.Meanwhile, in this case, people are trying to draw a distinction between the identity of the customer and an activity solely determined by that identity.
Homosexual act is a behavior while skin color is not, so it is not a valid comparison. People cannot choose what skin color they have, but they can choose whether or not they participate in homosexual sex or get married.As such, I think my example is a good one - a black renter isn't being turned away because they're black but simply because the landlord's religion prohibits him from condoning the act of living in a black household.
What he'd do for any customer is to design a custom-made wedding cake tailor-made for the couple. That's when free speech comes to the picture.The wedding cake is for the reception. And since he's not invited, there's no need for him to worry about the details of the wedding. Just make a cake like he'd do for any customer.
That's it.What he'd do for any customer is to design a custom-made wedding cake tailor-made for the couple. That's when free speech comes to the picture.
Homosexual act is a behavior while skin color is not, so it is not a valid comparison.
People cannot choose what skin color they have, but they can choose whether or not they participate in homosexual sex or get married.
What he'd do for any customer is to design a custom-made wedding cake tailor-made for the couple.