[BigCliff]

Pretty straightforward, really

[Plow]

The real issue is if you're a baker, photographer or anything else and are asked to participate in an activity that's against your religious beliefs you should have the right to NOT participate. You should also be protected from the hate-mongering left for practicing your religion.

That said, not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is one thing, not selling cookies to gays is a whole other ball game.

If libs had half a nut between them they ask a muslim baker for a cake. Libs are such hate filed hypocrites.

[VTNZ]

lol...oh man....

So plow...would you sell a gay muslim cookies?

Would you bake him a cake as well?

[canook]

Libs are such hate filed hypocrites.

Fucking hypocritical Libs.
They should be more tolerant of your intolerance.

[cantfishforshit.]

Where do turnovers fit in? Ok to sell to gays or not? Can they at least call in the order and pick it up at the back door like we used to make black people do? It would probably be a travesty to feed gays. That's how it started out with blacks and the next thing you know they wanted civil rights and everything.

[Muddled Duck]

I'm for private business owners having the right to refuse business to anyone. Public places are a whole different thing. I'm a bit torn on the whole issue of having separate public restrooms for men and women. Is that sex discrimination?

[canook]

I'm for private business owners having the right to refuse business to anyone.

yeah, fuck that all people being equal nonsense. Who was stupid enough to suggest that in the first place.

[BigTimber]

I'm a bit torn on the whole issue of having separate public restrooms for men and women. Is that sex discrimination?

No, it's tranny discrimination....not that there's anything wrong with tranny's. they make me chuckle every time I walk by them out side the 801 in Key West.

[BigTimber]

did I ever tell you about the aboriginal tranny I saw in austria? you've never seen a tranny until you've seen an aboriginal tranny.

[Upsetter]

I'm for private business owners having the right to refuse business to anyone. Public places are a whole different thing.

A business that is "open to the public" is a public place; thats settled law, youre either open to the public or youre not. That said, all businesses reserve the right to refuse business to anyone. It just cant be solely because they are black or whatever federally protected class they might be. You can always refuse business to a black/white/whatever race person cause they are behaving like a jackass in your place of business.

This situation that im guessing spurred the op is a bit different imo. I havent read the law, but im guessing the service providers this law is (hopefully) narrowly targeting are those who are significantly involved in the "marraige business" and possibly "family/estate planning". Wedding photographers, planners, decorators, financial consultant, estate planner, etc. I would distinguish this relatively narrow class of business owners from all others in that the level of contact, the intimacy of contact is much higher than a dry cleaner or c-store owner. The question then becomes: where do the rights of gay folk to contract with whom they choose run afoul of others rights to practice their religion as they see fit?

I will co-opt number three from the op table, rephrased accordingly, to illustrate my point:

Religious Liberty is being violated
Being forced to spend many hours photographing/planning a gay wedding even though gay marriage is against your religion.

Religious Liberty is not being violated:
You are unable to prevent gay people from being married if they so choose.

Where does the level of contact, type of contact cross the line btw whose rights are being violated (religious freedom vs gay rights/equal protection)? Well, that appears to be the question pence is trying to answer. Whether he got it right or wrong I cant say.

[Muddled Duck]

I'm for private business owners having the right to refuse business to anyone. Public places are a whole different thing.

A business that is "open to the public" is a public place; thats settled law, youre either open to the public or youre not. That said, all businesses reserve the right to refuse business to anyone. It just cant be solely because they are black or whatever federally protected class they might be. You can always refuse business to a black/white/whatever race person cause they are behaving like a jackass in your place of business.
I understand that. I simply disagree. I think it would generally be a stupid way to run a business, but that isn't the issue. I don't plan to march, write letters or make phone calls. Simply a personal opinion. Certainly not the only law with which I disagree.
This situation that im guessing spurred the op is a bit different imo. I havent read the law, but im guessing the service providers this law is (hopefully) narrowly targeting are those who are significantly involved in the "marraige business" and possibly "family/estate planning". Wedding photographers, planners, decorators, financial consultant, estate planner, etc. I would distinguish this relatively narrow class of business owners from all others in that the level of contact, the intimacy of contact is much higher than a dry cleaner or c-store owner. The question then becomes: where do the rights of gay folk to contract with whom they choose run afoul of others rights to practice their religion as they see fit?

I will co-opt number three from the op table, rephrased accordingly, to illustrate my point:

Religious Liberty is being violated
Being forced to spend many hours photographing/planning a gay wedding even though gay marriage is against your religion.

Religious Liberty is not being violated:
You are unable to prevent gay people from being married if they so choose.

Where does the level of contact, type of contact cross the line btw whose rights are being violated (religious freedom vs gay rights/equal protection)? Well, that appears to be the question pence is trying to answer. Whether he got it right or wrong I cant say.

Good post.

[Muddled Duck]

I'm for private business owners having the right to refuse business to anyone.

yeah, fuck that all people being equal nonsense. Who was stupid enough to suggest that in the first place.

The fuck does "all men are created equal" have to do with it? The government should NOT be allowed to discriminate, but I have a different opinion regarding private business.