In Houston nondiscrimination is on the line (beheadings to follow)

bobtaftfan said:
In other words, liberals are upset that hateful gays can't get Christian bakers, florists, or photographers in Houston fined or jailed for not wanting to service a ceremony that they find morally offensive. Liberals are especially upset that some states have adopted religious freedom laws that prevent militant gays from persecuting Christian vendors for daring to decline to service gay weddings.

In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for declining to service a ceremony that you find offensive. This is not even close to the same thing as refusing to serve someone a meal in your restaurant or refusing to rent someone a room in your hotel. This is about your constitutional right as a person of faith not to be forced to service a ceremony that you find objectionable on religious grounds.

Question: Why oh why would you want to force anyone to bake your wedding cake, provide flowers for your wedding, or photograph your wedding if you knew they found it offensive, regardless of the reason they found it offensive? Who does that?

Normal, tolerant people would simply go find a different baker, florist, or photographer. For example, if I went to a print shop to get some handbills printed for a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality, and if I found out that the print shop owner was gay and that he would find it offensive to print the handbills, I wouldn't sue him nor try to get him fined or jailed--I'd just thank him for his time and go find a different print shop. That's called tolerance and respecting other people's beliefs and feelings.
Click to expand...

You offer services to the public, it's all the public. Not just those you like.

Your example falls flat, in that you chose not to engage the services of the print shop, the owner of the printshop did not refuse you service.
 
bobtaftfan said:
. This is not even close to the same thing as refusing to serve someone a meal in your restaurant or refusing to rent someone a room in your hotel. This is about your constitutional right as a person of faith not to be forced to service a ceremony that you find objectionable on religious grounds. .
Click to expand...

The ordinance would have made work-place, housing and public accommodation discrimination illegal. So it really was about refusing to serve someone a meal or refusing to rent someone a hotel room. It was about other stuff too, but it was far more than your post makes it out to be.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
The ordinance would have made work-place, housing and public accommodation discrimination illegal. So it really was about refusing to serve someone a meal or refusing to rent someone a hotel room.
Click to expand...

Yea, but only the wrong type of people will be refused rooms in hotel rooms.
 
The Don said:
PERVERT !!!!! :rolleyes:

The first time a woman should see a penis is on her wedding night and to be honest probably not even then because the lights should be off. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And she should be wearing a flannel nightgown with a flap cut in it so the foul deed can be accomplished!!! NO, I am not making that up - happened in the US a lot (1800s mostly mentioned in)
 
bobtaftfan said:
In other words, liberals are upset that hateful gays can't get Christian bakers, florists, or photographers in Houston fined or jailed for not wanting to service a ceremony that they find morally offensive. Liberals are especially upset that some states have adopted religious freedom laws that prevent militant gays from persecuting Christian vendors for daring to decline to service gay weddings.

In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for declining to service a ceremony that you find offensive. This is not even close to the same thing as refusing to serve someone a meal in your restaurant or refusing to rent someone a room in your hotel. This is about your constitutional right as a person of faith not to be forced to service a ceremony that you find objectionable on religious grounds.

Question: Why oh why would you want to force anyone to bake your wedding cake, provide flowers for your wedding, or photograph your wedding if you knew they found it offensive, regardless of the reason they found it offensive? Who does that?

Normal, tolerant people would simply go find a different baker, florist, or photographer. For example, if I went to a print shop to get some handbills printed for a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality, and if I found out that the print shop owner was gay and that he would find it offensive to print the handbills, I wouldn't sue him nor try to get him fined or jailed--I'd just thank him for his time and go find a different print shop. That's called tolerance and respecting other people's beliefs and feelings.
Click to expand...

They are as ridiculous as those blacks being upset about not being able to get a sandwich at a woolworths. Go to where you are wanted, and if you get doxed it is totally your fault as well.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Allegedly this law was already in effect for 3 months in Houston, with zero incidents of perverts using the law as an excuse to enter women's restrooms. Similar protections have also been in place in other cities, and there has never been an incident in any of those places, either. This is all bigoted fear-mongering.
Click to expand...

Actually, there have been incidents like that. I once participated in a thread about a person named Colleen Brenna. That person was a non-operative MTF transgender, and a self described lesbian. That was a severely creepy dude.

"She" had the right to continue to use the female facilities at the local community college, while the high school swim team that used the locker room at the pool went elsewhere.

I read that this person subsequently started taking hormones as preparation for gender reassignment surgery, but I don't know if that continued. It fell off the news radar.
 
Travis said:
Can I propose a thought. What if a little girl sees a penis in a locker room? I'm trying to understand just how seeing a penis is somehow a violation in and of itself. Was the little girl unaware they exist? If so would this not be a good way to understand not everyone is the same?
Click to expand...
And why should those with penises be disallowed from being in a room with nude little girls?
Surely the person with the penis is aware that nude little girls exist, and if "he" is not- the locker room is the perfect place to begin "his" education.
 
Travis said:
Can I propose a thought. What if a little girl sees a penis in a locker room? I'm trying to understand just how seeing a penis is somehow a violation in and of itself. Was the little girl unaware they exist? If so would this not be a good way to understand not everyone is the same?
Click to expand...

While I cannot come up with a logical answer to your questions off the top of my head, I will note that that the questions would be equally relevant whether the penis was attached to a male or a female, and whether or not the exposure of the penis occurred inside or outside a locker room.

(Note that this accepts the modern notion that the idea of a penis on a female is not an inherent contradiction.)

Despite my lack of a logical answer, I still would recommend that anyone contemplating showing his (or even her) penis to a little girl be very conscious of the circumstances. There are legal and ethical considerations involved.

Generally speaking, even in these modern times, it is assumed that a woman has the right to choose which penises she looks at. If she chooses not to look at it, most people are expected to keep their penises concealed from her view. In the case of small girls, that decision is generally delegated to the parents.

Apparently, some exceptions to the above rule apply.
 
sylvan8798 said:
^Well that's what you get for going out without your burka.
Click to expand...

But how are you supposed to know if it is a man or woman in the Burka? Clearly you need to display your genitals clearly to all before you enter a bathroom, it is common courtesy.
 
Meadmaker said:
Generally speaking, even in these modern times, it is assumed that a woman has the right to choose which penises she looks at. If she chooses not to look at it, most people are expected to keep their penises concealed from her view. In the case of small girls, that decision is generally delegated to the parents.
Click to expand...

Why are these perverted women not being punished for peeking on someone who is going to the bathroom? It is wrong to peek on someone to fulfill your voyeuristic fetishes ladies!
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why are these perverted women not being punished for peeking on someone who is going to the bathroom? It is wrong to peek on someone to fulfill your voyeuristic fetishes ladies!
Click to expand...

Unless the design of women's bathrooms in the U.S. is fundamentally different to those in the UK wouldn;t they be using stalls. I can see how you could catch a glimpse at a urinal, but in a stall ?
 
The Don said:
Unless the design of women's bathrooms in the U.S. is fundamentally different to those in the UK wouldn;t they be using stalls. I can see how you could catch a glimpse at a urinal, but in a stall ?
Click to expand...

You're not supposed to use logic in these matters, you're supposed to just blindly panic.
 
The Don said:
Unless the design of women's bathrooms in the U.S. is fundamentally different to those in the UK wouldn;t they be using stalls. I can see how you could catch a glimpse at a urinal, but in a stall ?
Click to expand...

That is why these women are perverts for peaking on the transwoman in hopes that they can see her genitals!
 
Border Reiver said:
You offer services to the public, it's all the public. Not just those you like.

Your example falls flat, in that you chose not to engage the services of the print shop, the owner of the printshop did not refuse you service.
Click to expand...

Printshops may be different, as are cakes with words on them, as opposed to just a decoration, as these overlap speech.

Ironically, one recent Supreme Court decision, the license plate one (where the government is selling off advertising space on license plates, the government may restrict things it doesn't like, like Confederate flags, because it is "speaking" when it makes the plates. I suspect the left won't like it much when conservative states allow anti-abortion items but not pro-choice ones, but that is your tangled web) may go to buttress this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom