Faster than I predicted

[Stoked]

Guys, let's talk about the lesbian mayor of Austin, TX who tried to subpoena all homosexual sermons. That one is totally credible as well.

Houston.

Read today that she ordered the subpoenas to be narrowed in scope.

 

[Nate505]

Actually, no. I was not calling him out at all, I was getting clarification.

Now, the reason I was getting clarification, was to see if Highland had the same exact position as I do. Turns out he does. But if you had read my comment before that one you would have seen that.

So in short, yes you did read to much into it, in addition to not reading the full convo, and as a result you placed me on the wrong side. This has nothing to do with dishing it out or taking it.

I absolutely agree with HH in that if any personally owned business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason, they should be able to. I do not like the idea of judges and legislators controlling that.

The bolded part above is a position I have stated several times in several threads. So please, continue to tell me how I believe Judges and Legislators should be able to control that accoring to their own personal beliefs.

That idea makes me sick personally.

If you are a business open to the public, you better serve the public. Otherwise, don't open your business to the public.

Say there is a small town in the middle of nowhere that has a whopping one grocery store ( Burlington Colorado comes to mind). Let's also say the nearest grocery store after that one is 30 miles away. If the owner of that store hates gays and refuses to serve maybe the 1 or 2 gay guys in town, does that mean they now have to move our drive 30 miles for groceries? I doubt public pressure is going to shut the place down, and there probably isn't a good financial incentive to open another store.

So again, when you open a business to the public, serve the public.

 

[HighlandHomie]

That idea makes me sick personally.

If you are a business open to the public, you better serve the public. Otherwise, don't open your business to the public.

Say there is a small town in the middle of nowhere that has a whopping one grocery store ( Burlington Colorado comes to mind). Let's also say the nearest grocery store after that one is 30 miles away. If the owner of that store hates gays and refuses to serve maybe the 1 or 2 gay guys in town, does that mean they now have to move our drive 30 miles for groceries? I doubt public pressure is going to shut the place down, and there probably isn't a good financial incentive to open another store.

So again, when you open a business to the public, serve the public.

Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.

 

[Harambe]

Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.

Better off is an interesting statement. Couldn't you say the community would be better off accepting others of different backgrounds and beliefs?

Every HR department I've ever worked for seems to think this is the case.

 

[Nate505]

Human nature makes me sick because I always like to think people can be better. But most people suck the fat one. So in your scenario I'd say the one or two gays would probably want to relocate to another part of the state/country. They're free to go wherever they are happiest. I'd imagine a small town that doesn't offer their business to gays wouldn't be among their first choices.

Maybe the guy was born there and doesn't want to leave, or doesn't have the financial means to do so.

I'm extremely opposed to a country that can run people out of town through denying them goods/services just because the owners of the business are bigoted jagoffs. On most things I'm pretty libertarian, but in this instance the Feds and state have a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of their citizens by intervening.

 

[One Brow]

You should be able to imo

Regardless, the point is that gay marriages are being treated the same as straight marriages, not differently.

 

[One Brow]

wll, sloping is always a matter of choosing the coordinate system in a manner that makes "progress" look like the same old thing.

Here, there is no "progress" on the infringement of rights, in fact, no change at all.

 

[Gameface]

Aren't there ways around this? Sure, if you're open to the public then you have to serve the public, but can't they become a club or organization of some sort that can choose who their members are?

Like how can night clubs turn away ugly people and let in hotties?

 

[MVP]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

 

[One Brow]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

Religious servants, acting for their religion, do not have to marry them.

 

[The Midnight]

Wow.. whatever happened to freedom of religion (provided it doesn't harm others)???

 

[The Midnight]

Freedom and equality should be going both ways. If gay people have right to marry then pastors, priests, mohels, mulas and other religious servants should have right not to marry them. It all should be a matter of choice. Nothing can be forced IMHO.

This.