# I see where Calif judge has ruled



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Bakers DONT have to make cakes for ADAM and STEVE, or EVE and Elvira.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More details would be helpful.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

FarmboyBill said:


> Bakers DONT have to make cakes for ADAM and STEVE, or EVE and Elvira.


Is this a subject that's important to you or just a need to mock other people?


----------



## cowboy joe (Sep 14, 2003)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...cake-religious-objections-20180207-story.html

I believe this is the news story...not posting an opinion, just the link so please leave me out of it...


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

The eagle flies at midnight.......


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

wr said:


> Is this a subject that's important to you or just a need to mock other people?


is this a rhetorical question?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Clem said:


> is this a rhetorical question?



I wonder what he was doing in those gay Mexican biker bars all those years ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There goes that darn pendulum again....


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Right on! Interesting that I haven't seen it on news sites today. Guess the liberal media is swallowing crow instead.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

He was being VERY quiet and nondescript in those Mexican and the biker bar lol.


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

*gets the popcorn*


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Two Geezers walk in to "gray bar........"
Get it?...... "Gray bar".....Not gay bar?
I knock myself out.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...cake-religious-objections-20180207-story.html


This is merely a CA Supreme Court judge.

It's hardly a definitive ruling since there are at least 2 or 3 higher courts that can hear appeals to the ruling.


----------



## farmgal (Nov 12, 2005)

Great, we don't want the government controlling our beliefs. Hope it sticks.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Government controlling religion is not the issue. The issue is fair commerce vs personal beliefs. While any business that is licensed is obligated to abide by the law, some people are claiming that their business is an art, and don't have to abide by the same law.

An overall unpleasant argument, because in the end, the "artist" is going to have to show that thy treat everybody equally, although under their own interpretation of equal. Can an artist prove that they don't like some activities all the time, or can it be proved that they pick and choose, in blatant disregard of their chosen set of rules?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Clem said:


> Government controlling religion is not the issue. The issue is fair commerce vs personal beliefs.


It is the issue to the religious. Commerce is the issue to the Government. And then there is the entanglement of the two.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> Is this a subject that's important to you or just a need to mock other people?


Lol I would read this as snark if I saw you in here more. 
Those of us here regularly know FBB is passionate about the subject.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol I would read this as snark if I saw you in here more.
> Those of us here regularly know FBB is passionate about the subject.


Snarking at the prime moderator is about as snarky as it gets. 
As to the rest of your post, you gotta be kidding, right?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Hunter, nowadays, that could be a grey gay bar lol
AS Im supprised youd think I was passionate about anything, OTHER then alla these sexy wimmins getting poor ole rich men to fondle and have a fun frenzy with, then sue their pants off with the pockets fulla money. lol.
Well, maybe also Hollywood s making of old west movies lol.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Clem said:


> Snarking at the prime moderator is about as snarky as it gets.
> As to the rest of your post, you gotta be kidding, right?


Lol I was hoping she would know me well enough to see it as a neighborly observation.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol I was hoping she would know me well enough to see it as a neighborly observation.


Well, these days it's OK to swing either way, moment to moment, depending how how you're Feeling.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

What happened to Elvira


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

whiterock said:


> What happened to Elvira


Elivira, Mistress of the Dark?


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

yep , her


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

whiterock said:


> yep , her


I had to go look but Cassandra Peterson does seem to do a certain number of appearances throughout the year as Elvira. 

https://www.elvira.com/pages/appearances


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> .........”she”.........


Now, I can see where the mention of cankles and love handles can have such ramifications.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

"The couple did not want any words or messages on the cake, but just the cake. Still, the owner, Cathy Miller, told them that "because she does not condone same-sex marriage," according to the opinion, she would send their order to another bakery, called Gimme Some Sugar."

Yeah, I'd want my cake baked there anyways...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here’s where I think the judge’s ruling fails the logic test.

"The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked . . . The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.

" . . . For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

The judge seems to be saying that if the couple asked for, say, a German Chocolate cake from the display cake for their wedding the baker would have to comply. But if they called a week ahead to ensure there would be a German Chocolate cake for them they could be denied because she hadn’t yet “conceived” of that particular cake.

The Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the Colorado case and we’ll know whether this judge was right or wrong.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Ill bet E don't look like that anymore LOL.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I got to Telya I just don’t get it I would never want someone who disliked me or what I was doing to design them bake a cake for me.
I doubt I would like the poop filling or the spit icing. And honestly if I was asked to design the cake in question that is exactly what my artistic side would require


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

How would one know, upon entering your place of business that you don’t like them or that you don’t like them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> And honestly if I was asked to design the cake in question that is exactly what my artistic side would require


That says a lot about you.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Here’s where I think the judge’s ruling fails the logic test.
> 
> "The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked . . . The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.
> 
> ...


Interesting argument...
What gets me is how did the baker know she was tasked with baking a cake for a gay couple? If two women entered an establishment, asking to be served, could they be denied service just because the owner assumed they were gay? Or did the owner query as to whom the cake is for? Does the owner have a right to query as to the 'end use' of the cake? 

Actually, I find the owner's religious objections to be immaterial. She is not a house of worship, where anything goes, but a business. A business may have a right to proselytize but denying someone their cake, they have crossed the 'line'. 
Artistic expression angle would be hard to prove for a cake maker. The owner has probably made thousands of cakes. The gay couple were looking for a cake that has already been thought of, not a new artistic design. If that was the case, then a car dealer could say I can't sell you a car to your specifications (yet to be made), but I can sell you one from our lot.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

melli said:


> Interesting argument...
> What gets me is how did the baker know she was tasked with baking a cake for a gay couple? If two women entered an establishment, asking to be served, could they be denied service just because the owner assumed they were gay? Or did the owner query as to whom the cake is for? Does the owner have a right to query as to the 'end use' of the cake?
> 
> Actually, I find the owner's religious objections to be immaterial. She is not a house of worship, where anything goes, but a business. A business may have a right to proselytize but denying someone their cake, they have crossed the 'line'.
> Artistic expression angle would be hard to prove for a cake maker. The owner has probably made thousands of cakes. The gay couple were looking for a cake that has already been thought of, not a new artistic design. If that was the case, then a car dealer could say I can't sell you a car to your specifications (yet to be made), but I can sell you one from our lot.


You’ve hit on my main objection to the “artistic expression” argument in most of these cases. Most commercial bakeries have a set of standard cakes and themes they offer for events like weddings. If you walk in they’ll pull out their book of cakes they’ve produced before and explain all the flavor combinations they come in. Many will even set up tastings where you can sample cakes and see them. So the idea that most of these cakes involve a lot of artistic expression is , to me, a bit like saying the $19.99 wall hanging you buy at the “starving artist” sale is akin to the Mona Lisa.

A cake is a cake.

ETA- I also have a bit of an issue seeing a wedding ceremony as “speech” as the judge said it was.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wr said:


> How would one know, upon entering your place of business that you don’t like them or that you don’t like them?


Do you not like them or do you not like them?

There was a diesel repair place that posted a sign that they wouldn't do any work for anyone openly gay. Is it possible to act straight for a few moments? If you suspect that a bakery is anti-gay, couldn't a person simply act straight?
If I normally cuss a blue streak, just how I talk, would it be too much to expect while I'm repairing plumbing in a Church or Grade School, that I change how I normally act? Just out of respect to others that foul language offensive? Would you think others should just accept me as I am?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Do you not like them or do you not like them?
> 
> There was a diesel repair place that posted a sign that they wouldn't do any work for anyone openly gay. Is it possible to act straight for a few moments? If you suspect that a bakery is anti-gay, couldn't a person simply act straight?
> If I normally cuss a blue streak, just how I talk, would it be too much to expect while I'm repairing plumbing in a Church or Grade School, that I change how I normally act? Just out of respect to others that foul language offensive? Would you think others should just accept me as I am?


You tell the diesel repair place story often but your story relies heavily on stereotypes. What does straight or gay look like and the only way to know for sure if someone is openly gay would be to ask and that seems a bit intrusive. I can think of some examples in my own community that would surprise most people.

Perhaps it would help if you could explain how gay people act.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Find it interesting how many of you cannot see art in anything other than conventional art. I certainly seal well restored cobra as art even see a steam locomotive as art landscaping is art fishing flies are art in fact most things done in life are art.

I also find it interesting that so many of you want to separate business and religion when so many religions tell their participants that all they do they do as if for god 

You just can’t separate art religion business and persons they are all intertwined. 

If they weren’t we wouldn’t be having this conversation.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Find it interesting how many of you cannot see art in anything other than conventional art. I certainly seal well restored cobra as art even see a steam locomotive as art landscaping is art fishing flies are art in fact most things done in life are art.
> 
> I also find it interesting that so many of you want to separate business and religion when so many religions tell their participants that all they do they do as if for god
> 
> ...


That is the point of the conversation...where does one draw a line? A religious person has said they cannot serve a gay couple. In other words, they want the right to discriminate against whom they serve because of their religious beliefs. Interestingly, the constitution has specific language that no one can discriminate against someone's religious beliefs, yet a religious person wants the right to discriminate. That sounds just plain wrong. 
Actually, taking it a step further, what if it wasn't a gay couple, but a religious person who entered the store and asked for a cake. And this religious person didn't subscribe to the same god as the owner....could the owner deny service? 
I do believe there is a passage about false gods. 

I agree one's religion is wholly part of one's life. And perhaps the prime motivation of their being. But I think if we allow folks to discriminate against another based on religion, we have crossed the line of equality, for there is none, if we allow folks to create their own line. Soon, we'd have a caste system. 

I really think it is easy to draw a line. A business that serves the public at large, cannot discriminate (period).


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

melli said:


> That is the point of the conversation...where does one draw a line? A religious person has said they cannot serve a gay couple. In other words, they want the right to discriminate against whom they serve because of their religious beliefs. Interestingly, the constitution has specific language that no one can discriminate against someone's religious beliefs, yet a religious person wants the right to discriminate. That sounds just plain wrong.
> Actually, taking it a step further, what if it wasn't a gay couple, but a religious person who entered the store and asked for a cake. And this religious person didn't subscribe to the same god as the owner....could the owner deny service?
> I do believe there is a passage about false gods.
> 
> ...


No, the Constitution doesn’t say you or I cannot discriminate against someone based on their religous beliefs. The Constitution regulates the behavior of the government, not you or I. There are a variety of laws federal, state and local that protect the religous from discrimination from you and I. It’s the same protections in these laws that the religous would deny to those whose “lifestyle” they disapprove of. I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again, when the religous are willing to give up their protection and allow the gay baker the freedom to deny them service I’ll stand next to them. One doesn’t gain or stand for freedom by denying freedom to others.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wr said:


> You tell the diesel repair place story often but your story relies heavily on stereotypes. What does straight or gay look like and the only way to know for sure if someone is openly gay would be to ask and that seems a bit intrusive. I can think of some examples in my own community that would surprise most people.
> 
> Perhaps it would help if you could explain how gay people act.


Flamboyant. A man that acts overly or in an exaggerated feminine manner.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[Content deleted*]





*Content originally in brackets exceeded HT civility limits. Edited by Shrek 7:25 2/12/18


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

melli said:


> I really think it is easy to draw a line. A business that serves the public at large, cannot discriminate (period).


Wow think what you are saying here,
“ give up your religion or die”
Kinda extreme to prohibit a person of faith from participating in the economy , not even the Amish do that.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow think what you are saying here,
> “ give up your religion or die”
> Kinda extreme to prohibit a person of faith from participating in the economy , not even the Amish do that.


I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. And although you inferred that, is one giving up their religion by selling a cake to a gay couple? 
Personally, I just see a business owner selling a cake, nothing more. The business owner has taken it a step further to ascertain by whom the cake is going to be consumed by...the owner wasn't asked to decorate the cake in such a way as to belie their religion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It’s a matter of wanting ones cake and eating it too. The bakers seem to want the right to discriminate while being protected from discrimination themselves.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> No, the Constitution doesn’t say you or I cannot discriminate against someone based on their religous beliefs. The Constitution regulates the behavior of the government, not you or I. There are a variety of laws federal, state and local that protect the religous from discrimination from you and I. It’s the same protections in these laws that the religous would deny to those whose “lifestyle” they disapprove of. I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again, when the religous are willing to give up their protection and allow the gay baker the freedom to deny them service I’ll stand next to them. One doesn’t gain or stand for freedom by denying freedom to others.


I did a little reading, and it seems the courts are moving away from 'separate but equal' doctrine. That is, there can be no equality with separation.
The constitution does lay out basic protections for all, not just a document for government.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

[content deleted *]





*Content originally in brackets exceeded HT civility limit. Edited by Shrek 7:21 CST 2/12/18


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

[content deleted *]






*Content originally in brackets referenced private message content which is in violation of the posting of private message content /importing argument from outside ST policy. Edited by Shrek 7:18 PM CST 2/12/18


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

melli said:


> I did a little reading, and it seems the courts are moving away from 'separate but equal' doctrine. That is, there can be no equality with separation.
> The constitution does lay out basic protections for all, not just a document for government.


Those protections aren’t from you and me. They are protections from the government. Without laws prohibiting such action there is no protection from the baker or diesel mechanic discriminating against gays. There are no federal antidiscriminstion laws or anything in the constitution that provide such protections. Of course, if you believe in the equal protection clause you should believe that antidiscriminstion statutes should be rewritten to remove protected classes and simply protect everyone equally from discrimination. All such laws have been enacted on state and local levels and in many places there is no law that says a baker need serve a gay couple. Which leads back to my point about the hypocrisy of those who would hide behind their own protected status while denying the same protections to others.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

The separate but equal idea was started in the South in the 1800s. It NEVER was EQUAL, and NEVER would/could be, ANYWHERE in the country, on ANY issue.


----------



## Nsoitgoes (Jan 31, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Flamboyant. A man that acts overly or in an exaggerated feminine manner.


Giggle. I hope that you don't *really* believe that all - or even many - gay people behave in such a stereotypical manner. I have many gay friends. If I were to introduce you to any of them (well, other than one who is endearingly quirky) you would probably never guess their sexual preferences. They are normal people. They work. They play/watch golf, football, basketball and tennis. And maybe Dancing with the Stars. They shop for groceries. Some cook fabulous meals, some eat TV dinners. Some are buff and exquisitely dressed. Some are overweight and dress like uncle Jed. Just like the rest of society all they want is to live normally and love the person of their choice.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I’ve got a good friend who acts very “flamboyantly”. It amuses, and sometimes embarrasses, his wife of 30 years.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nsoitgoes said:


> Giggle. I hope that you don't *really* believe that all - or even many - gay people behave in such a stereotypical manner. I have many gay friends. If I were to introduce you to any of them (well, other than one who is endearingly quirky) you would probably never guess their sexual preferences.


My point isn't that all gay men act like that. My point was that for those that do, they might need to tone it down in situations where others find this behavior objectionable. I have many gay friends. I have known gay and transsexual men that are both flamboyant and overtly sexual. The diesel mechanic, the baker and I find that offensive. Tone that down, don't make your homosexual preferences so obvious and get your truck repaired, your cake baked and we can be friends. Otherwise take your self centered self elsewhere.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

[content deleted *]






*Content originally in brackets referenced private message content which is in violation of the posting of private message content /importing argument from outside ST policy. Edited by Shrek 7:15 PM CST 2/12/18


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> My point isn't that all gay men act like that. My point was that for those that do, they might need to tone it down in situations where others find this behavior objectionable. I have many gay friends. I have known gay and transsexual men that are both flamboyant and overtly sexual. The diesel mechanic, the baker and I find that offensive. Tone that down, don't make your homosexual preferences so obvious and get your truck repaired, your cake baked and we can be friends. Otherwise take your self centered self elsewhere.


I find many things that others do or say offensive. What I find most offensive is those who insist others must behave a certain way to be accepted. True friends don’t require friends to hide who they are. They accept them as they are.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[content deleted *]






*Content originally in brackets was baiting and close to attacking another member on board. Edited by Shrek 7:08 PM CST 2/12/18


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[content deleted *]






*Content originally in brackets was baiting and close to attacking another member on board. Edited by Shrek 7:09 PM CST 2/12/18


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Flamboyant. A man that acts overly or in an exaggerated feminine manner.


Assumptions can cause problems. A new pharmacist came to town a few years back and his mannerisms would likely cause you to assume he's gay. His mannerisms were found by many to be quite flamboyant but it seems his wife, pack of kids and his church may suggest he's quite straight. 

I'd also guess you'd assume my best friend is gay as well. Many have called her a **** based on her masculine build, manerisms and style of dress and yet she's as straight as they come. 

Do people like these deserve discrimination because someone has made assumptions?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

They may NOT deserve it, but they get it a lot of times.
People accepting people who they consider different then they consider themselves, AS A FRIEND, SHOULD also accept that persons differences, OR should not accept them as friends.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> My point isn't that all gay men act like that. My point was that for those that do, they might need to tone it down in situations where others find this behavior objectionable. I have many gay friends. I have known gay and transsexual men that are both flamboyant and overtly sexual. The diesel mechanic, the baker and I find that offensive. Tone that down, don't make your homosexual preferences so obvious and get your truck repaired, your cake baked and we can be friends. Otherwise take your self centered self elsewhere.


How do you know the cake baker found a couple to be flamboyant. I was of the impression that the cake baker refused to bake the cake because homosexuality was the problem, not flamboyance. 

Ultimately, you would still judge my local pharmacist as flamboyant because of his mannerisms and you'd still be wrong. 

You're seriously misinformed about *my *homosexual preferences so it would stand to reason that you may find I'm not nearly as self centered as you may think.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

FarmboyBill said:


> They may NOT deserve it, but they get it a lot of times.
> People accepting people who they consider different then they consider themselves, AS A FRIEND, SHOULD also accept that persons differences, OR should not accept them as friends.


You're okay with the idea that someone can face discrimination because another uses a tired old stereotype?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I find your recent indecent private message objectionable.


 I thought it was against the rules to reveal senders AND contents of PM s?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> It’s a matter of wanting ones cake and eating it too. The bakers seem to want the right to discriminate while being protected from discrimination themselves.


Could you explain what discrimination they want protected from. ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you explain what discrimination they want protected from. ?


You do understand that the gay baker cannot in any state or locality say they won’t serve someone because of their religion? So, until I hear the religous community who support discriminating against gays say they are willing to give up their own protection I can only assume they want that protection.


----------



## Nsoitgoes (Jan 31, 2016)

haypoint said:


> My point isn't that all gay men act like that. My point was that for those that do, they might need to tone it down in situations where others find this behavior objectionable. I have many gay friends. I have known gay and transsexual men that are both flamboyant and overtly sexual. The diesel mechanic, the baker and I find that offensive. Tone that down, don't make your homosexual preferences so obvious and get your truck repaired, your cake baked and we can be friends. Otherwise take your self centered self elsewhere.


You don't find it incongruous to suggest that others should change their normal behavior/personality in order to appease those who apparently believe they have the right to regulate such things?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nsoitgoes said:


> You don't find it incongruous to suggest that others should change their normal behavior/personality in order to appease those who apparently believe they have the right to regulate such things?


I think we all do it. Guys that talk vulgar, offensive locker room talk, rein it in when in other situations or around people they judge to be offended by their normal speech. We don't wear a Budweiser Tee shirt to a Baptist Church meeting. If I normally wear a lot of cologne, I'd tone it down in the work place. If I'm going to the Bank for a mortgage, I might feel more comfortable in sweat pants and a robe, but I dress neatly instead. We all make concessions in our day to day with other people.
I doubt the Baker just out of the blue, "Hey, I think you might be gay, no cake for you" or the diesel mechanic our of the blue, "Are you gay, 'cause I don't do work on trucks owned by Gays." I believe there was something overt, obvious or somehow over the top that created these situations.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I think we all do it. Guys that talk vulgar, offensive locker room talk, rein it in when in other situations or around people they judge to be offended by their normal speech. We don't wear a Budweiser Tee shirt to a Baptist Church meeting. If I normally wear a lot of cologne, I'd tone it down in the work place. If I'm going to the Bank for a mortgage, I might feel more comfortable in sweat pants and a robe, but I dress neatly instead. We all make concessions in our day to day with other people.
> I doubt the Baker just out of the blue, "Hey, I think you might be gay, no cake for you" or the diesel mechanic our of the blue, "Are you gay, 'cause I don't do work on trucks owned by Gays." I believe there was something overt, obvious or somehow over the top that created these situations.



Tell us how you conduct yourself and the vulgar locker room talk you use around married women you don't know ? Does your wife know about your escapades ?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> You do understand that the gay baker cannot in any state or locality say they won’t serve someone because of their religion? So, until I hear the religous community who support discriminating against gays say they are willing to give up their own protection I can only assume they want that protection.



The government is protecting against discrimination of religion, color, and sex I thought. 
Why would a person think being gay is a religion ?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Where U at Redlands Okie. Im in Rodgers Co.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Redlands Okie said:


> The government is protecting against discrimination of religion, color, and sex I thought.
> Why would a person think being gay is a religion ?


They don’t. But why is religion protected. One chooses whether to be religous or not. All other protected classes are things one is born being. Why should anyone be protected for behavior they choose? Kind of like being flamboyant, isn’t it?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Not going to get into what one chooses or lifestyles etc. Just remarking on the protections provided by the government which is in regards to the OP original post. There are just way to many ways to handle situations you do not want to be part of in business and life with out creating such situations as the OP’s post is referring to. 
I will say that I am self employed. My customers have their choice who they do business with. Just as I decide if their going to be my customer. Same for friends. Just no need to fan the fires on these issues as some seem to want to do. Seems like good manners and a bit thicker skin would help out a lot.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Govmnt DOSNT PROTECT religion. It PROTECTS the rights of everybody to worship (nowadays, whoever) and HOWEVER they wish. Time was, before the Constitution was writ up, there were towns, and likely even colonys where, Whatever religion that town or colony practiced, you had better be practicing also, for your own health, OR be ready to convert pretty quick.
AFTER the Constitution, and the formation of this country, the law was, You can be just about any kind of religion you want to be, and the Govmnt will protect your right to be that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You just can’t separate art religion business and persons they are all intertwined.


One not only can, but must separate their religion from their business if they are dealing with the public. 

If they want to do business *fairly*, their religion can't be part of it.

If they just want to force everyone to follow their beliefs, they shouldn't be in retail.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> Elivira, Mistress of the Dark?


I heard she's retiring, and she may have already done her last public appearance last Halloween.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Redlands Okie said:


> I will say that I am self employed. My customers have their choice who they do business with. Just as I decide if their going to be my customer. Same for friends. Just no need to fan the fires on these issues as some seem to want to do. Seems like good manners and a bit thicker skin would help out a lot.


 That brings up another point if everybody can force a baker to serve everybody can the baker force everybody to buy from him ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> They don’t. But why is religion protected. One chooses whether to be religous or not. All other protected classes are things one is born being. Why should anyone be protected for behavior they choose? Kind of like being flamboyant, isn’t it?


Because this is the USA. 
Don’t like freedom? Can’t deal with it ? Immigrate to one of those places that isn’t founded on it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Because this is the USA.
> Don’t like freedom? Can’t deal with it ? Immigrate to one of those places that isn’t founded on it.


I do like freedom. I like the freedom of knowing that when a store opens its doors to me I am free to walk in and purchase whatever they have for sale. I’d love to have the same freedom to have my choices protected as the religous have to have their choices protected. To me, freedom means freedom for everyone, not just a chosen few. Now, I’ll ask it again. Why should the choice of being religous be protected from discrimination when other choices aren’t?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Who discriminates against a person who chooses to be religious? Ive never heard of it. Ive been a 1/2 doz religions, Ive never been discriminated against. I been Luthern, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostel, Morman, and back to Baptist, all in that order.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> Who discriminates against a person who chooses to be religious? Ive never heard of it. Ive been a 1/2 doz religions, Ive never been discriminated against. I been Luthern, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostel, Morman, and back to Baptist, all in that order.


It’s illegal for a business to do so. 

Why?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> Who discriminates against a person who chooses to be religious? Ive never heard of it. Ive been a 1/2 doz religions, Ive never been discriminated against. I been Luthern, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostel, Morman, and back to Baptist, all in that order.


Do you think Muslims and Jews have never been discriminated against?
How about Catholics?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

How would I know its illegal? Ive never had it happen. Never had anybody deny me service cause of my religion.
Lisa, Im sure your right that those religions have been discrimited against. AND, ad Mormans to that list.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I have to admit to some preconceived negative ideas about evangelical Christians and I’m a Christian myself. I don’t actively discriminate against any group that I can think of though. Not like if I were a baker I’d turn away someone who wanted a cake celebrating snake handling or speaking in tongues.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

If a customer goes into a business to buy a cake or a can of oil how in the world is the business going to know your religion or sexual preferences or whatever? Present the information to get the transaction done. It’s just business. 
Why in the world would the customer even bring up any of the subjects? You walk in the door and ask for chocolate cake with hearts on it and “love forever (insert name)” or a bottle of 10w- 40 (insert brand of oil). Any thing else has very little to do with the BUSINESS transaction. No need to complicate things unless your looking for a problem. People sure like to cause problems, makes life interesting I guess.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Lisa in WA said:


> I have to admit to some preconceived negative ideas about evangelical Christians and I’m a Christian myself. I don’t actively discriminate against any group that I can think of though. Not like if I were a baker I’d turn away someone who wanted a cake celebrating snake handling or speaking in tongues.


I dunno I'm pretty open minded but if someone asked me for a cake with snakes on it, nope ain't happening I dont care what the fine is...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Redlands Okie said:


> If a customer goes into a business to buy a cake or a can of oil how in the world is the business going to know your religion or sexual preferences or whatever? Present the information to get the transaction done. It’s just business.
> Why in the world would the customer even bring up any of the subjects? You walk in the door and ask for chocolate cake with hearts on it and “love forever (insert name)” or a bottle of 10w- 40 (insert brand of oil). Any thing else has very little to do with the BUSINESS transaction. No need to complicate things unless your looking for a problem. People sure like to cause problems, makes life interesting I guess.


If two women walk in holding hands and ask to buy a cake for their wedding are they “looking for a problem” or are they just doing what couples in love planning their wedding do every day of the week?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> That brings up another point if everybody can force a baker to serve everybody can the baker force everybody to buy from him ?


You should at least *try* to be realistic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> FarmboyBill said: ↑
> Who discriminates against a person who chooses to be religious? Ive never heard of it. Ive been a 1/2 doz religions, Ive never been discriminated against. I been Luthern, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostel, Morman, and back to Baptist, all in that order.


You realize those are really just variations of the Christian religion don't you.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> If two women walk in holding hands and ask to buy a cake for their wedding are they “looking for a problem” or are they just doing what couples in love planning their wedding do every day of the week?


I think the answer is YES to both questions. So pick and choose and handle the results. No need to go to court over such stuff, gees.
Lots of different lifestyles and values out there. It’s not that hard to get along for most people. No need to be looking for a argument all the time. 
If your child, family, property or something important being mistreated then get up and go take care of it. But a cake or wedding dress or some such? What a way to live.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Redlands Okie said:


> I think the answer is YES to both questions. So pick and choose and handle the results. No need to go to court over such stuff, gees.


So a gay couple is “looking for trouble” but a heterosexual couple acting exactly the same way isn’t? What’s the difference and who really has the problem, those who just want to go through their daily lives like anyone else or those who would punish them for it?

Maybe you can answer my earlier question. Why should the religous be legally protected from the same discrimination they inflict on others?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Yes Bear, I realize that.
There has always been conflicts of interest, and there still are, as is this one.
Ranchers hated farmers. Drove them out, killed them, ran off their livestock, burnt their crops. Why? They were both agrarian types of people!
In the northern states the Abolishionest? movement was Very strong, yet you had black riots in NY, cause, likely some of the same As were in the runm out crowd.
Men and women have married for over 3000yrs. NOW, This minute, gays INSIST that all that be set aside, and for people to recognize and accept them in totality. Aint gonna happen. Its gonna take a couple generations before that happens, so get over it.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

What do you mean by (The same discrimination)? What is this SAME DISCRIMINATION?. Theres likely many more people nowadays who don't go to church anymore, like me, BUT who don't accept that theres a really real God.. They go on with their lives, and get the same services to them done same as people who go to church 3 times a week. There not discriminated against, as being athiests, OR at the very least, being indifferent to religion. There all treated the same, AS LONG, as they accept and agree to be hetrosexual. WHY?? Cause that has been a habit, a institution, a recognized set of morals for thousands of years, REGARDLESS whether they are religious OR NOT.
BY THE WAY. I have no doubt that there will come a time when most younger people accept and even embrace homosexulality in their lives and environments. It just aint gonna happen today, or this week, or month, year or decade.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I did not say the heterosexual couple was not looking for trouble. No need to put words in my mouth. I am not the one trying to start a argument. I just think everyone should make some effort to get along or just go along on down the side walk for most things. This nation is at a pretty good point in its history to be picking at the occasional issue. 
I have no reason why religion should be protected or not protected. Never said it should or shouldn’t. I was talking about the legal issues already in place.

Why are there so many types of religions out there ? Perhaps it has something to do with some in the group having different ideas. So they started a new religion or method of practicing it. Seems this nation is a prime place to do so. Why force someone else to worship your way ? If you do not agree with the idea then move on and do your own thing. 
I will say that not to many wars have been over who was willing to bake a cake or work on a car. Religion and race and have been a issue quite a few times, thus deserves a bit of attention.


----------



## BostonLesley (Nov 14, 2017)

Suppose I was a baker...and someone asked me to make a cake decorated with Nazi symbols and a hanged man in the middle with the script "Jew" under the figure. Suppose I was Muslim and a customer asked me to make a wedding cake which depicted Allah. Suppose I was African American and a customer asked me to make a wedding cake for a KKK couple...they'll supply their own cute little flags... Suppose I was gay and a customer asked for a cake which had a script mocking same sex marriages ? Suppose I was Jewish and a customer wanted a wedding cake which is decorated with the word "God" all over it? Suppose my religion forbids me to participate in any way in gay marriage and a customer asks me to bake a wedding cake for his gay marriage? The argument that demands that a baker must be forced to make a wedding cake against his religion or go out of business means that ALL BAKERS should be forced to make ALL cakes requested by ALL customers for every example above....OR should common sense and decorum rule and ALL of these bakers be allowed to decline to create what THEY find to be better done by someone else.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Well 10 pages so far...... and I suspect not a “correct” answer available ☹


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> Yes Bear, I realize that.
> There has always been conflicts of interest, and there still are, as is this one.
> Ranchers hated farmers. Drove them out, killed them, ran off their livestock, burnt their crops. Why? They were both agrarian types of people!
> In the northern states the Abolishionest? movement was Very strong, yet you had black riots in NY, cause, likely some of the same As were in the runm out crowd.
> Men and women have married for over 3000yrs. NOW, This minute, gays INSIST that all that be set aside, and for people to recognize and accept them in totality. Aint gonna happen. Its gonna take a couple generations before that happens, so get over it.


I missed the part where gay folks asked that straight marriages be set aside.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I do like freedom. I like the freedom of knowing that when a store opens its doors to me I am free to walk in and purchase whatever they have for sale. I’d love to have the same freedom to have my choices protected as the religous have to have their choices protected. To me, freedom means freedom for everyone, not just a chosen few. Now, I’ll ask it again. Why should the choice of being religous be protected from discrimination when other choices aren’t?


 I thought I was clear but I will see if I can help clarify a bit more. 

The country that I live in and that I assume we are talking about is the United States of America. This is a republic founded on certain rights important to the founders and with a few modifications by the overwhelming majority. 
One of those rights is freedom OF religion. 
Not freedom from religion. 
There are other rights of behavior that are guaranteed. 
In any case the reason we have freedom of religion is because it is guaranteed in the constitution.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Redlands Okie said:


> I did not say the heterosexual couple was not looking for trouble. No need to put words in my mouth. I am not the one trying to start a argument. I just think everyone should make some effort to get along or just go along on down the side walk for most things. This nation is at a pretty good point in its history to be picking at the occasional issue.
> I have no reason why religion should be protected or not protected. Never said it should or shouldn’t. I was talking about the legal issues already in place.
> 
> Why are there so many types of religions out there ? Perhaps it has something to do with some in the group having different ideas. So they started a new religion or method of practicing it. Seems this nation is a prime place to do so. Why force someone else to worship your way ? If you do not agree with the idea then move on and do your own thing.
> I will say that not to many wars have been over who was willing to bake a cake or work on a car. Religion and race and have been a issue quite a few times, thus deserves a bit of attention.


So, is the heterosexual couple walking in the store “looking for trouble” or not? Why is it incumbent on the gay couple to alter their behavior to get along? Can’t you, or the baker, simply accept them doing the same thing as other people and make the effort to get along? Why do others have to get along with you? Can’t you get along with them? Be the bigger person.

And I’m talking about the legal issues in place. It’s not legal for me to look at the person wearing the crucifix around her neck or the WWJD bracelet on his arm and say to them that because of those things I won’t serve them in my business. Shouldn’t I have the ability to tell them to remove such items before entering my shop and to get along with me or go along? Isn’t it the same standard you say is just fine to use against others? Why can’t I? One doesn’t have to say that they favor something in order to answer whether that something should happen or not.

How many people does it have to affect before it becomes important enough to address? Or, that discrimination doesn’t affect you but those you might disagree with enough reason not to worry about it or fight against it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

BostonLesley said:


> Suppose I was a baker...and someone asked me to make a cake decorated with Nazi symbols and a hanged man in the middle with the script "Jew" under the figure. Suppose I was Muslim and a customer asked me to make a wedding cake which depicted Allah. Suppose I was African American and a customer asked me to make a wedding cake for a KKK couple...they'll supply their own cute little flags... Suppose I was gay and a customer asked for a cake which had a script mocking same sex marriages ? Suppose I was Jewish and a customer wanted a wedding cake which is decorated with the word "God" all over it? Suppose my religion forbids me to participate in any way in gay marriage and a customer asks me to bake a wedding cake for his gay marriage? The argument that demands that a baker must be forced to make a wedding cake against his religion or go out of business means that ALL BAKERS should be forced to make ALL cakes requested by ALL customers for every example above....OR should common sense and decorum rule and ALL of these bakers be allowed to decline to create what THEY find to be better done by someone else.


You were good up until the last one. The law is quite clear that the baker, or printer or artist does not have to create specific languages or symbols that they find offensive if they are consistent in not creating them for anyone. In the Colorado case and in this one no special decorations were requested. Sometimes a cake is just a cake.

Bakers don’t participate in weddings. They bake and sell cakes, some of which are used in weddings.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I thought I was clear but I will see if I can help clarify a bit more.
> 
> The country that I live in and that I assume we are talking about is the United States of America. This is a republic founded on certain rights important to the founders and with a few modifications by the overwhelming majority.
> One of those rights is freedom OF religion.
> ...


The guarantee in the constitution protects you and me from actions by the government. It doesn’t protect you from me or me from you. And it shouldn’t give you more protection than me based on you choosing to be religous.

The government protects your right to speak freely. You have no such right here, do you? The moderators can remove your posts and ban you from even being here. Are they violating your rights? No they’re not. 

So, why can’t I ban any religous expression by you in my business or even simply decide my business won’t sell any member of a specific religion anything? I understand the government offering protections for those things that one is born being- Race, ethnic origin, sex. But religion? Why should I have to accept you because you choose to believe? It’s your choice to do so. Shouldn’t it be my choice not to serve you?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Why should I have to accept you because you choose to believe? It’s your choice to do so. Shouldn’t it be my choice not to serve you?


you are right I agree.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> you are right I agree.


So, you’ll start advocating for laws to remove religion from the protected classes?


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

anyone remember the signs that used to be in businesses, and might still be in some? Said, " We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Seems to me this is more about that than baking a gay wedding cake. There could be any number of reasons a business/owner might refuse service. There are some restaurants I would be turned away from. Some stores I might not be waited on. I can go somewhere else and get what I need.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

whiterock said:


> anyone remember the signs that used to be in businesses, and might still be in some? Said, " We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Seems to me this is more about that than baking a gay wedding cake. There could be any number of reasons a business/owner might refuse service. There are some restaurants I would be turned away from. Some stores I might not be waited on. I can go somewhere else and get what I need.


Those signs aren’t enforceable. You can’t refuse to serve a black person because they’re black. You can’t refuse to serve a woman because she’s a woman. You can’t refuse to serve a person of Italian heritage because they are of Italian heritage. You can’t refuse to serve a Baptist because they’re Baptist. But, in many places you can refuse to serve a homosexual because they’re gay. Why?


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I'm gonna call it extenuating circumstances and let it go at that.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

I remember, gosh it had to be a couple decades ago...my daughter had come to visit. We went to a large grocery store and she was talking, telling me about some stuff going on in her life. As we left the store she got a little weepy, so being a mother, I did what mother's do, held my daughter in a big bear hug, smoothed her hair, told her things would be all right...right there in the parking lot at the grocery.

We got some *REALLY* nasty looks from people going into or out of the store!

She quit sobbing and we loaded the few groceries into the car. As we settled in our seats and I shifted into gear I turned to her and said, "Oh, hey! Congratulations! You're now gay!" Told her about the "looks" we'd gotten in the parking lot. She spent the rest of the day giggling every time she thought of it.

Too many people believe that God's on vacation and left THEM in charge.

Mon


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Why would someone want to remove a protection useful for many ? If a there is a issue that needs protection then work on it. No need to destroy whats already working. 
The ideas on some of these things can be governed by law but the law will only stop flagrant obvious problems. Laws do not change the thoughts and opinions of most people, just changes how they handle things so as to stay legal.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Here we have signs that say, No shirt, no shoes NO SERVICE, No UNO, starts with an s lol. NOW, IF they can enforce a ban on people with no clothes or shoes, I cant see why they couldn't enforce a ban for other reasons.
Too fat to sit in the shoe store chair
Too smelly to get their shoe sizes taken
too foul mouthed to allow near anywhere
too argumentative and confrontational
too political, like trying to convince a business owner to change his political affliations
too religious, like trying to convert people in a business
too atheist, like seeing a cross on the wall of a business and damning it to hell.
These all seem like conditions that could cause a business owner to say, get out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why would someone want to remove a protection useful for many ? If a there is a issue that needs protection then work on it. No need to destroy whats already working.
> The ideas on some of these things can be governed by law but the law will only stop flagrant obvious problems. Laws do not change the thoughts and opinions of most people, just changes how they handle things so as to stay legal.


What’s working? That the religous can discriminate but can’t be discriminated against. There is one constitutional protection in play here. Equal protection under the law. Right now that protection is far from equal. There are two ways to fix that. One is to eliminate the protection that only some get and apply the same standard to everyone. Everyone gets to discriminate against any they choose. The other is to extend those protections to all, eliminating special classes like religion and making everyone equally protected under the law.

I have no expectation that any law will open any heart and make them more accepting of others. Haters gonna hate. But it doesn’t mean that they should be free, in places open to the public, to act on that hate.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> Here we have signs that say, No shirt, no shoes NO SERVICE, No UNO, starts with an s lol. NOW, IF they can enforce a ban on people with no clothes or shoes, I cant see why they couldn't enforce a ban for other reasons.
> Too fat to sit in the shoe store chair
> Too smelly to get their shoe sizes taken
> too foul mouthed to allow near anywhere
> ...


And no shoes, no shirt, no service applies to everyone. It isn’t no shirt but you’re a Christian I’ll serve you but no shirt you’re an atheist I won’t. Businesses can set standards and regulate behaviors in their establishments but those standards apply to all equally. Don’t want a gay couple to hold hands in your business, fine. But you’d better be willing to tell the straight couple next to them to turn loose, to.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Im guessing here, But id say that the VAST majority of people have way less predijuce against gay women then gay men. WHY IS THAT,
I remember back 50yrs ago seeing 2 women dancing with themselves at the local Firemans Ball. Yes, Firemen have balls LOL. As a country kid, I thought it was kinda funny, as in humorous, nothing more. They were probably my age now, and I imagined that no guys wanted to dance with them. BUT the seed was planted, whenever people saw that, and there were loads of instances of women dancing with women, and likely for the same reasons, BUT people got used to seeing that on occasion. As far as most people knew, that was that. It might even have gone as far as, 2 women living together to make ends meet. Likely happened a lot during the wars, and the Depression when either there were no men around, OR they just happened to be single during the D and had to survive. Nobody thought much about it at all. They considered it their business, and let it go at that.
MEN however, danced with other men due to a lack of women, all through out the west in the Old West Days. Homosexuality was well known in the Old West. Possibly the reason Billy the Kid killed his first man, a big bully, beating the rap outa him. We all know that Billy was small, had small hands, ect. MY POINT BEING, IN THIS,
IS THAT. Since MOST overtly gay people ARE men, and its a known fact that gay men try to seduce straight men, that THAT has caused the backlash against gays in general. That they are not only satisfied with partners as gay as themselves, but try to seduce straight men also.
I imagine its going to be a LONG time before there are laws that make THAT legal.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mmn In THIS day and age, Were I a store owner and saw 2 guys entering, holding hands, Id tell them to let go or go. IF they were standing there and and a hetro couple was there behind them holding hands, Id say, Due to the current situation that is going around in this country concerning the rights of these 2 gentlemen before you, TO BE FAIR to them, I have to ask you to let go also, or go. Sorry.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

If you're prone to shooting yourself in the foot, trade in your automatic for a revolver.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> Im guessing here, But id say that the VAST majority of people have way less predijuce against gay women then gay men. WHY IS THAT,
> I remember back 50yrs ago seeing 2 women dancing with themselves at the local Firemans Ball. Yes, Firemen have balls LOL. As a country kid, I thought it was kinda funny, as in humorous, nothing more. They were probably my age now,
> I don’t think that is a fact all all. bill I imagined that no guys wanted to dance with them. BUT the seed was planted, whenever people saw that, and there were loads of instances of women dancing with women, and likely for the same reasons, BUT people got used to seeing that on occasion. As far as most people knew, that was that. It might even have gone as far as, 2 women living together to make ends meet. Likely happened a lot during the wars, and the Depression when either there were no men around, OR they just happened to be single during the D and had to survive. Nobody thought much about it at all. They considered it their business, and let it go at that.
> MEN however, danced with other men due to a lack of women, all through out the west in the Old West Days. Homosexuality was well known in the Old West. Possibly the reason Billy the Kid killed his first man, a big bully, beating the rap outa him. We all know that Billy was small, had small hands, ect. MY POINT BEING, IN THIS,
> ...


I don’t think that’s a fact at all Bill. Gay men have pretty good gaydar and if you have them hitting on you, they are probably picking something up about you that you are denying to yourself subconsciously.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> mmn In THIS day and age, Were I a store owner and saw 2 guys entering, holding hands, Id tell them to let go or go. IF they were standing there and and a hetro couple was there behind them holding hands, Id say, Due to the current situation that is going around in this country concerning the rights of these 2 gentlemen before you, TO BE FAIR to them, I have to ask you to let go also, or go. Sorry.


The better question is why bother telling either of them? How does it affect you if two men are holding hands? Think of it this way, as long as they’re holding each other’s hand that’s two less hands reaching for you.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

nope, as a matter of fact, I happened to meet some of them years later, and was told that they all thought that I was an undercover cop, and nobody would get near me. As Ive said before. I went to different bars, I was VERY quiet, didn't talk to people, and left by myself. The ONLY bar I was actually afraid to be in was a lesbian bar, and when I found out that it was, as I hadn't known that before entering, I likely wouldn't have gone in.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

#1, Why it would bother me, is, cause, it offends me. It offends my morals. Im 70. U likely being way younger don't understand that. Id tell the first 2 to let go cause I wanted to. Id tell the second 2 to let go cause it would be the right thing to do in this circumstance.
Now, to keep you fired up, IF the second 2 came in, holding hands, and they and me were alone, I wouldn't say a thing. lol
ALSO, IF a gay couple came in, and one was a T gal but I didn't know it, I wouldn't say anything LOL
IF I DID know that she was a T gal, I LIKELY wouldn't say anything. Depending on how well she looked. Short hair, beard stubble, hairy arms and legs with skirt and blouse. Outa here lol.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Or just keep on shooting, hollering "YeeHaw!!" all along.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I tell it like it is. Aint hurting my feelings none.


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One not only can, but must separate their religion from their business if they are dealing with the public.
> 
> If they want to do business *fairly*, their religion can't be part of it.
> 
> If they just want to force everyone to follow their beliefs, they shouldn't be in retail.


What you said reminds me of my father, the most racist, bigoted man I have known. He left his feelings at the door when it came to business. "As long as their money was green" they got his full time and attention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmboyBill said:


> IF they can enforce a ban on people with no clothes or shoes, I cant see why they couldn't enforce a ban for other reasons.


Shirts and shoes applies to everyone equally.
It's more about health codes than politics or morality.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

catboy, I once went to a black bar. There was a few who was saying things about letting me in, and the lady taking the money, a Miss Victorias, which the house was named after said, I don't care if hes black, blue, white or purple, so long as his money is green.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Bear, your right, The ban is used on/for/against all peoples. For my argument, I was just saying that such a ban CAN be enforced, REGARDLESS of what the offenders are.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

{Content deleted*}





*Content originally in brackets discussed a PM and imported a quarrel Terri 2-13-18 3:27 M


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

{Content deleted*}




* content originally in brackets was importing a quarrel and baiting. Terri 2-13-18 3:20 PM


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I actually dress mine up every day. Bowtie, the whole 9 yards.

Well, not quite...


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Clem said:


> I actually dress mine up every day. Bowtie, the whole 9 yards.
> 
> Well, not quite...



9 yards ? oh boy, what a crock


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I've always had trouble tying a tie.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> 9 yards ? oh boy, what a crock



Post of the year!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I prefer a double Windsor.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mmn That used to be a drink if I remember rightly.
Lisa. Sorry to have offended you. Sure didn't mean to.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Would you show me WHERE my post offended you. I reread it, and couldn't make the connection.


----------



## RazrRebel (Apr 16, 2013)

The article stated that the woman was a practicing Christian. She needs more practice. GOD wants us to love one another, not judge. I know, I used to be hateful, racist, and discriminating. Jesus changed all that. I'd bake the cake, and invite her to church. We as Christians should never pass up an opportunity to minister on behalf or our GOD.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Use a better man then I is. lol.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> {Content deleted*}
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Curious where the rule is that bars talking about a pm that doesn’t mention a name and how it’s *importing* a “quarrel”. 
I thought the rule was that you couldn’t post a pm.


----------

