Posted on 03/31/2015 8:56:24 AM PDT by MosesKnows
What this simplistic comparison denies, however, is that not everyone accepts homosexuality is genetic, and there are long proscriptions against it in various religions. But especially, homosexuality is based on acts, whereas skin color is not.
So lumping all of these issues into demands for "tolerance" that clearly, knowingly require someone to give up their religion, and selectively targeting Christians especially and never Muslims, is NOT a "Gary rights" issue - it is social warfare. And it is being carried out as inflammatorily as possible by the Left, RIGHT NOW, precisely in order to create a distraction and a rallying point away from Hillary's troubles.
Yes, Hillary. She is the Leftist candidate. She, therefore, is associated in liberal minds with "gay freedom." Therefore her corporate friends are suddenly screaming about the 20th iteration of a Religious Freedom law right when she's being exposed as running an unauthorized espionage operation with our terrorist enemies.
This us not a coincidence. Everyone is being "wagged" by Hillary's dogs. Pay no attention to the traitor behind the emails. Oooh look, a small business where Christians won't actively abandon their faith for gay marriage - let's all scream!
I'm telling ya, it's distraction.
“How do the shop owners know they are not bothers buying a cake for their sister’s wedding?”
Well, suppose they say something like “We’re looking to buy a cake for our wedding. That one in the case looks good, we’ll take it.”
You’re just trying to lure Navigator out of lurk mode.
The truth is people can find anything and everything to be offended about. And when they are legitimized, like they have been, they keep pushing it further and further. Meet their demands and they demand more. We don’t need “appropriate” analogies because the there will never be an appropriate one. There will always be a reason why what they believe is different. I thought the key would be to hammer away at the freedom aspect of it. But I can see that most are so used to bending over for FedGov that they have no concept of what it is to stand up.
“Well, suppose they say something like “We’re looking to buy a cake for our wedding. That one in the case looks good, we’ll take it.””
Yes. Finally. This is going in circles which is what the liberal argument does. Take a look at the original comment and response that started this sub-thread.
The answer In this case is the shop does not sell that product, or the product is not sold for that use - which is the same as not selling the product.
“Unless they want me to make a “penis” cake or cater for a same-sex wedding, I don’t see any grounds for refusing service.”
What grounds are there to to refuse service for that?
“The halal butcher sells meat. Perhaps they sell a rather odd meat, say camel meat. Therefore they must sell pork?”
You mean the gay couple wanted a cake made out of pork?
Duh ...
“Did they sell a cake for two men or two women?”
I think the dogs were male and female.
Jolly joker, you are.
Why not!? What’s good for the goose...
Being a carnivore is not a protected class.
Uncommon common sense and respect!
And what distant planet are you visiting us from MosesKnows?
Doesn't sell wedding cakes? Yes it does. For your analogy to be accurate you would have to go to a bakery and request a steak or the Indian restaurant and ask for a screw driver.
No. You don’t even come close to being a protected class.
Re: “What grounds are there to to refuse service for that?”
I don’t understand your question. Re-read the original post. I already stated the grounds for refusal.
You are claiming a same sex wedding cake is, and has been, on the “menu”?
No but a cake custom decorated to your choice is.....
How about a clothing store that doesn’t sell larger sizes?
Sign in the window “sorry we dont carry Hillary sizes our largest size is what we refer to as the Sarah size
why patronize a place that doesn’t have what you want...
The issue with the bakers and same-sex "weddings" is not that the bakers don't have what the same-sex couples want, it's that the bakers have what they want, but won't sell it to the same-sex couples. That's why I think this thread is based on a bad analogy.
A better analogy would be a car dealership owned by a devout Muslim who won't sell a car to a woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.