[kish]

Don't know if I'm allowed in the basement, but what the hell. It seems pretty simple to me.

A "Devout Christian" caterer should not be forced by law to cater a gay wedding any more than a gay caterer should be forced to cater a reception in the basement of the Westboro Baptist Church. ( Or whatever the name of that nasty bigoted anti gay church is.)

Unless you argue in favor of the latter, you're full of shit to argue the former.

Or how about forcing a Black caterer to serve a KKK rally? Not quite as analogous, but not too far off.

[canook]

Except, of course, that Christ never once said anything negative about homosexuality and a number of Christian denominations are completely accepting of homosexuals.

He taught love and acceptance, quite the opposite of what wbc preaches.

The wbc is to Christianity what boko haram is to Islam.

[kish]

So we should make and enforce laws based on Christ's supposed opinions? (or lack of)?

Who decides which churches or religions are acceptable and deserve protection? John Boehner? Harry Reid?

[canook]

So we should make and enforce laws based on Christ's supposed opinions? (or lack of)?

Of course not. That was my point. Obviously, the gov. of Indiana thinks you should though (until it becomes too damaging politically, at which point he'll lose his religion).

[cantfishforshit.]

Don't know if I'm allowed in the basement, but what the hell. It seems pretty simple to me.

A "Devout Christian" caterer should not be forced by law to cater a gay wedding any more than a gay caterer should be forced to cater a reception in the basement of the Westboro Baptist Church. ( Or whatever the name of that nasty bigoted anti gay church is.)

Unless you argue in favor of the latter, you're full of shit to argue the former.

Or how about forcing a Black caterer to serve a KKK rally? Not quite as analogous, but not too far off.

Except for the fact that these (Westboro and KKK) are considered hate groups. Your argument is asinine.

[Wholetmygoatsout]

Don't know if I'm allowed in the basement, but what the hell. It seems pretty simple to me.

A "Devout Christian" caterer should not be forced by law to cater a gay wedding any more than a gay caterer should be forced to cater a reception in the basement of the Westboro Baptist Church. ( Or whatever the name of that nasty bigoted anti gay church is.)

Unless you argue in favor of the latter, you're full of shit to argue the former.

Or how about forcing a Black caterer to serve a KKK rally? Not quite as analogous, but not too far off.

Except for the fact that these (Westboro and KKK) are considered hate groups. Your argument is asinine.

The argument may well be asinine, but this debate is a slippery slope that will have people, from both the left and right, making similar arguments and probably worse.

[cantfishforshit.]

It's very simple. We don't refuse to service non-violent groups. We serve blacks, hispanics, hindu, etc and gays. We have a constitution that says they have the right to eat at the same lunch counter that we do. Don't like it? Move.

[fallen513]

i lovees mitch

[Wholetmygoatsout]

So we don't serve Hells Angels, Bloods, Crips etc etc ...what is the definition of violent groups ? This is the slippery slope that extremists will drag one down.

[cantfishforshit.]

So we don't serve Hells Angels, Bloods, Crips etc etc ...what is the definition of violent groups ? This is the slippery slope that extremists will drag one down.

I think that it's reasonable to not serve a person based on the fact that they are in a hate group (and all that you mentioned are in that category). It's not that complicated; Blacks are allowed at the lunch counter, so are gays. Hate groups can be refused service. Logic and reason still work. This isn't complicated.

[BaggerMcGuirk]

I bet they wont get the media attention and the death threats that the pizza joint is getting.



Carry on minions.

[cantfishforshit.]

Yes, gay wedding cakes aren't intolerant and hate speech. Anti gay wedding cakes are. Not complicated people.