Newest "racially insensitive" word.

[S.A. Boggs]

Sure, bake a cake...just not a good cake. Batter has too much salt, icing is bitter...sorry.
Sam

[togor]

Protected; and if he's FORCED by the gov't to accept patients he doesn't want, I'd hate to be one of them. However, a private business is NOT the "public sphere."

Clarification of terms. If I put up a shingle and say that I'm open to the public but proceed to turn away select members of the public for innate reasons is considered a violation of the covenant. In other words, by agreeing to do business with the public in general you have to accept the public for who they are. It's a simple enough concept and works well, mostly. And there are accepted limits, like "no shoes, no shirt, etc." But saying my religion compels me to exclude some swath of the public is the flip side of excluding someone because if their religion, and clearly something we try to avoid. This isn't hard stuff to figure out by any means. CH is no big fan of religion as much as he doesn't like gays.

Worth throwing out this challenge: If we allow shopkeepers nominally open to the public to exclude members of the public on the basis of their own religion, then where's the line?

[rayg]

What if you don't put "open to the public" on the sign and only say "open" as most signs say. Would that defuse the problem? Ray

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, the Hindu is going to go out of business as will the white dentist who only works on incisors. Arbitrary foolishness should not be protected,.

You just showed how government intervention is not needed. A dentist who only works on vegetarians will soon be out of business -- and it will be the potential clients who do it, not the government.

[clintonhater]

Clarification of terms. If I put up a shingle and say that I'm open to the public but proceed to turn away select members of the public for innate reasons is considered a violation of the covenant. In other words, by agreeing to do business with the public in general you have to accept the public for who they are.

Too bad you weren't on the legal team of the Buttfker Brothers when their case against Christian Baker went before the Supremes, who decided 7-2 against the bros; naturally, the two far left zealots Ginsberg & the Lesbo Greaser took your side.

[Vern Humphrey]

Too bad you weren't on the legal team of the Buttfker Brothers when their case against Christian Baker went before the Supremes, who decided 7-2 against the bros; naturally, the two far left zealots Ginsberg & the Lesbo Greaser took your side.

Remember when Sears sold handguns? And when they quit? Why should not Sears be sued for discriminating against handgunners?

[togor]

Too bad you weren't on the legal team of the Buttfker Brothers when their case against Christian Baker went before the Supremes, who decided 7-2 against the bros; naturally, the two far left zealots Ginsberg & the Lesbo Greaser took your side.

The gay issue seems a personal one to you. Something about the ex-wife maybe? I have no interest in the gay life, but they don't freak me out the way the idea seems to affect you. And let's not forget, it's a good bet that some forum members have gay kids or grandkids, and have made the decision to love them anyways. If there's even just one person in that boat, well good for them.

[clintonhater]

The gay issue seems a personal one to you. Something about the ex-wife maybe?

Notice that when he has no rational argument, his response is ALWAYS a personal attack.

[togor]

Notice that when he has no rational argument, his response is ALWAYS a personal attack.

Yet you have no problems filling your posts with slurs towards others. So no whining about tone!!

I'll ask nice: why do gays bother you so much? If you're not one, why worry?

[S.A. Boggs]

Notice that when he has no rational argument, his response is ALWAYS a personal attack.

Do like Togor is, turn him off.
Sam

[Allen]

Notice that when he has no rational argument, his response is ALWAYS a personal attack.

He thinks that any response at all is better than crickets chirping. I suppose he thinks we don't see through that. Nothing to say is nothing to say.

[togor]

Yes the bandwagon is silent while CH slurs away, but the moment he starts whimpering, they jump to their feet. I'll stick with my gambler's odds and say that there are guys at the forum who for personal reasons don't need CH going on and on and on and on about how gays are ruining his life. If he's repressed about it, then maybe he just needs to get real and take the plunge. Or failing that, just leave it alone already and make peace with it.

[lyman]

what bandwagon?

[Vern Humphrey]

Notice that when he has no rational argument, his response is ALWAYS a personal attack.

Which is why I have him on "ignore." Who wants to read snide remarks. Intelligent people discuss things of substance. Amadans make it personal.

[togor]

what bandwagon?

Allen, Boggs and Vernon chiming in on cue like cuckoo clocks after CH's expression of hurt feelings.

CH, let's get right to it. I'll make you a deal: you don't shove your rancid anti-gay bigotry in my face like an unwashed shirt, and I won't pointedly enquire as to the root of that bigotry. Deal? Or does the idea of not having your cake and eating it too strike you as impossibly unfair?

And by the way, wondering if the ex switched teams is not an attack. I know 3 people, with kids, both genders, whose exes switched teams that way. Each got a new partner and kept on driving. None of them feels the need to pack your level of venom towards their ex or gays in general. Not that they're like "oh goody, homosexuality", but they can accept it as a thing in the world without getting bent out of shape.