# Puter poll supprised me



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

It asked if businesses should be allowed to not serve gay people on religious principals. I and 45% said yes. 48% said no. I thought the yes vote would be twice at least as large. The times they are achangin


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmboyBill said:


> The times they are achangin


I don't think they are changing that much.
Some just run behind the times.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

yep, mebby so,
If I knew id get this old, Ida wanted to do it a hundred years ago LOL.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

I am older than you and I would have voted No, discrimination in any form is wrong.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

To each their own, and age is just one of the divisions. There are several.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

If homosexuals would not flaunt their gender confusion no one would have any REASON to even think of discriminating against them. Some of us are overloaded with juvenile speculations but keep them to ourselves---consequently we do not get slapped all that much. If the sweeties would do the same they would not even know what discrimination is.

Now don't get all excited and accuse me of hating homosexuals--I don't, but I get tired of the old claim that they are "born that way". That has not been proven and some authorities believe that at some point in their development they simply get crosswise with nature. Recent studies show that there is no possibility that any surgery can correct gender confusion---too many genes tuned to the anatomical sex they are born with. Nothing to do with the occasional but rare hermaphrodite, which are bona-fide genetic errors.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I do not discriminate against black people. They are born that way, same as im born this way and neither can help it. BUT, like Chuck says, this is different. Myself, I don't believe that they can be cured, nor do I believe that most of them want to be, if such a cure was available, tho im sure many would jump at the chance to be cured were such available.
If they kept it to themselves, as has been done for hundreds of years, id be fine with it. But I hate blatently being out with it. Same sex, kissing, fondling, holding ect on the screen erks me to no end. Im watching the western Godless, and sure enough two [lesbians]* go at it. Course, they got a white guy who will likely take onto a black girl, which I have no problem with, even in public, and even more so than the other way round.
IF the 2 guys who wanted a cake for their marriage had just got the cake, and taken off the bride figurine at the church or wherever, nobody would have known or cared, BUT they wanted to make a statement. They wanted the press and the publicity so as to shake up the morals in this country. That, I have a problem with.

*edited by Shrek as term originally in brackets exceeded site limits but was not reported and overlooked during initial mod read through but found during most recent read through. 12/12/17 01:38 AM CST


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Nother poll just came up. This one supprised me too
Should business s be allowed to refuse service to ANYONE they choose to? I said no as did 46% but 53%said yes.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Guess its the Kansas Yankee in me lol


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

FarmboyBill said:


> It asked if businesses should be allowed to not serve gay people on religious principals. I and 45% said yes. 48% said no. I thought the yes vote would be twice at least as large. The times they are achangin


I would say that rights of the baker are being discriminated against.
Works both ways....
There are many places have signs "No Shoes, No Shirt No Service"....is that discrimination?

You can burn the flag....but not pick who you will serve in you bakery?
These people are just looking for a fight.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

hunter63 said:


> I would say that rights of the baker are being discriminated against.
> Works both ways....
> There are many places have signs "No Shoes, No Shirt No Service"....is that discrimination?
> 
> ...


Ah but blacks, women, Christians, Muslims, homosexuals, and everybody else can burn a flag. Least anybody that can afford to buy a flag to burn, or lucky enough to find a burnable one in the trash. Equal opportunity and all that. Also everybody, blacks, women, Christians, Muslims and homosexuals have to wear shoes and shirt to do buisiness in a store. Usually that is a store selling food. Dont see those signs in car dealership or hardware stores. Only person it might discriminate, would be somebody without feet/legs....

Maybe stores then should be forced to have big signs out front "We dont serve N...." whoops, I mean Homosexuals. I am sorry, but either you want to be in buisiness or you dont. And really sleazy to wait, not providing warning that you discriminate, to then try to humiliate some unsuspecting person that comes into your store by refusing to provide a service you are claiming to provide. Just cause you dont like the cut of their jib. Should a mechanic be able refuse to fix a woman's car, cause he doesnt think his God wants women to drive?

Course be warned if you do give warning you discriminate, even though that might not affect me directly, I still wouldnt do business with you. I as a customer have perfect right to refuse to buy from those that do discriminate.

If you seriously dont want the work from all comers with pictures of dead presidents burning a hole in their pocket, dont go into that buisiness. Simple as that. Nobody can force you to be a mechanic or a wedding cake decorator. Do your artistry on your own time for your own amusement and sell the fruits of your labor privately to members of your preferred church or neo-nazi group that agrees 100% with your pet prejudices.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

The 45%/48% split sort of mirrors the split of the nation right now.

geo


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

So tired of minorities being the majority....


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

Hey, has this forum (singletree), changed to the "dark rooms"? Does this begin to exceed PB rules? What if young children are reading this? Moderators?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why should I be forced to make the lives better of people I don’t like ?
I don’t like a holes IF I work for one I certainly add a hole surcharge.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

RichNC said:


> I am older than you and I would have voted No, discrimination in any form is wrong.


Not to start an argument, but isn't this religious discrimination then?

What gets hazy is the speech issue - just what is speech. I don't understand why the media and even some Supreme Court justices treat this case as a speech issue, when it is a religious freedom issue.

I can understand the governments reluctance to uphold a person's Constitutional right to religious freedom, because governments believe they are all powerful and can tell people what they can and can't do. If they were to actually honor the 1st Amendment, think how much power the government would be giving up. Maybe that's why the Founding Fathers thought religious freedom was so important they put it in the very 1st Amendment.

If the cake baker charged homosexuals more for a wedding cake, that would be discriminatory; but when he says "I'm sorry, but I can't make the cake because that would be a violation of my religious beliefs", has he discriminated or has he simply stood by his religious principles?

What bothers me about most polls is the people who respond. Most people who are intelligent and hardworking most likely don't participate in polls.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Twp.Tom said:


> Hey, has this forum (singletree), changed to the "dark rooms"? Does this begin to exceed PB rules? What if young children are reading this? Moderators?


Shrek and I have been discussing this thread. There is a pretty good discussion going on, but some posters have been pretty blunt about opinions that might give offense. And peoples opinions are their opinions regardless of whether they say them or not, and whether or not they are blunt or if they give the more tactful "I disapprove".

What do the people here think? How blunt is too blunt for ST standards?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Twp.Tom said:


> Hey, has this forum (singletree), changed to the "dark rooms"? Does this begin to exceed PB rules? What if young children are reading this? Moderators?



I just went to the "dark room" and there's only 5-6 posters there arguing with each other, so I guess they needed to branch out 

I read on the internet that if you see two men kissing too many times you'll turn gay, a couple of you might wanna turn off your TV and stay in your home with curtains drawn.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

I (personally) feel that if a business owner wants to include, or exclude, a certain group of people, it is the owner's RIGHT to choose those he/she wants to serve. It is NOT an *employees* right to make that choice.

Further, if a business owner makes the choice to exclude a certain group, that owner does NOT get to gripe & apply for government benefits if his business goes under due to the group he/she excludes. 

Mon


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

frogmammy said:


> I (personally) feel that if a business owner wants to include, or exclude, a certain group of people, it is the owner's RIGHT to choose those he/she wants to serve. It is NOT an *employees* right to make that choice.
> 
> Further, if a business owner makes the choice to exclude a certain group, that owner does NOT get to gripe & apply for government benefits if his business goes under due to the group he/she excludes.
> 
> Mon


At first I thought that was a very fair way to treat the issue - government benefits. But if I'm exercising my 1st Amendment rights, does the government have the right to discriminate against me for doing so.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I never look at polls. Too easy to "rig" them. I mean, if Fox news does one and CNN does one of their viewers and ask the same question, the outcome will be different.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

As far as Dark Room or not.....That's up to ya'll.

I don't go there, nor care for endless drowning on about positions that will never be changed anyway.

I stated my opinion don't expect any one to change theirs because of it....So...
Moving on.....
May go to a "Straight Bar" for lunch


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

frogmammy said:


> I (personally) feel that if a business owner wants to include, or exclude, a certain group of people, it is the owner's RIGHT to choose those he/she wants to serve. It is NOT an *employees* right to make that choice.
> 
> Further, if a business owner makes the choice to exclude a certain group, that owner does NOT get to gripe & apply for government benefits if his business goes under due to the group he/she excludes.
> 
> Mon


I agree


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

hiddensprings said:


> I never look at polls. Too easy to "rig" them. I mean, if Fox news does one and CNN does one of their viewers and ask the same question, the outcome will be different.


I agree...not to mention the vast majority of News media etc are owned and operated by people that have shown their far left bias.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

oneraddad said:


> I just went to the "dark room" and there's only 5-6 posters there arguing with each other, so I guess they needed to branch out
> 
> I read on the internet that if you see two men kissing too many times you'll turn gay, a couple of you might wanna turn off your TV and stay in your home with curtains drawn.


I'm not the least bit concerned with being "turned gay" by anything I may see...what I do see is a definite agenda by activists and them specifically looking for trouble with certain individuals.businesses.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Terri said:


> Shrek and I have been discussing this thread. There is a pretty good discussion going on, but some posters have been pretty blunt about opinions that might give offense. And peoples opinions are their opinions regardless of whether they say them or not, and whether or not they are blunt or if they give the more tactful "I disapprove".
> 
> What do the people here think? How blunt is too blunt for ST standards?


I call it like I see it... and I prefer to engage with those that do the same whether or not we agree on things


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I believe as said above. I call them as I see them. BUTT, I do that NOT trying to offend any other particular ideas others may have. I don't try to haul others up on my band wagon, and Ill not climb up on theirs to avoid criticism.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

“I don’t like the idea of anyone forcing me to make a cake just because I run a business where I make cakes all day.”

Cecilia Crossman • Gondola Captain


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Clem said:


> “I don’t like the idea of anyone forcing me to make a cake just because I run a business where I make cakes all day.”
> 
> Cecilia Crossman • Gondola Captain


I don't believe he had a problem with making them a cake. They were free to buy any cake in his bakery.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Actually, I'm looking forward to the day I can go to the movies, and get in free (AND free popcorn!) without paying any money. You know, because if I don't have the $$$ to get in, it would be discrimination to NOT let me in, just because I was monetarily embarrassed. Might have a class action suit there!

Mon


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

i say that it is not the fact that homosexuals are who and what they are that bothers me--they are just "peculiar" people much like the fellow who pierces his nose. What irritates me is that they flaunt their peculiarity and demand that we approve. I don't mind any one or all of them having every right that I have, but I am sick or hearing them object to every little thing. The baker should be free to sell or not sell just as the homosexuals can go to any store they wish--not as if they had no other choices. They simply wanted to cause a stink.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

If I worked at a factory making cars, would I be within my rights to refuse to hook up the brakes because I was thinking some gay guy might buy this car and use the brakes to stop at a gay bar? Or a gay bakery? After all, if I can twist Christianity to mean "It's all about me and my cakes" Surely I can refuse to put brakes in a car that some gay people might use to stop at a bakery and offend someone's delicate fragile sense of control.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

What if a bakery posted an IQ test for you to take, because they didn't want to make a days pay from someone whose IQ was lower than theirs..

Call it anything you want, if you're in business, it's to make money, and refusing to make money because you are offended by what someone else does indicates you should not be running a business.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Clem said:


> If I worked at a factory making cars, would I be within my rights to refuse to hook up the brakes because I was thinking some gay guy might buy this car and use the brakes to stop at a gay bar? Or a gay bakery? After all, if I can twist Christianity to mean "It's all about me and my cakes" Surely I can refuse to put brakes in a car that some gay people might use to stop at a bakery and offend someone's delicate fragile sense of control.


What religion teaches that gays can't drive?

The point is that many religions have as a tenet that marriage is between a man and a woman. Until the Supreme Court created law from the bench, that was the law of the US as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a part of many religions and as such, should be a protected right under the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

As Terri stated, this thread is still a civil discussion . there is a slight bluntness factor resulting from generational/ moral value aspect, however when I first saw this thread reported to us, I felt it better that Terri and I moderate it in thread up mode instead of sending it into the moderation queue , which would take it completely off board.

By moderating it in thread up status, we can allow y'all to continue the discussion to better understand and relate to each other as we keep the posted content within host site content limits.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> What religion teaches that gays can't drive?
> 
> The point is that many religions have as a tenet that marriage is between a man and a woman. Until the Supreme Court created law from the bench, that was the law of the US as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a part of many religions and as such, should be a protected right under the 1st Amendment.


I've always liked this particular style of argument, in which your initial question, "What religion teaches that gays can't drive?" is a complete nonsequitur, in that nothing I said could be construed as what you said. Putting the words in my mouth, so to speak, and people who only read the most recent post will jump to the conclusion that I said some religion teaches that gays can't drive. I like that style of argument, because the people who follow the trail you've led go down your rabbit hole, instead of following the logical path.

Seriously, I actually admire misdirection as a form of communication. Sorta like when you're on fire, and point at somebody who isn't on fire and say "I bet he'd burn really hot"

It don't make sense, but yet people will turn and look anyway.

Incidentally, if religion were the basis for law, we'd all be living under our separate kind of sharia. Probably why "law" and "religion" are 2 different words.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Clem said:


> If I worked at a factory making cars, would I be within my rights to refuse to hook up the brakes because I was thinking some gay guy might buy this car and use the brakes to stop at a gay bar? Or a gay bakery? After all, if I can twist Christianity to mean "It's all about me and my cakes" Surely I can refuse to put brakes in a car that some gay people might use to stop at a bakery and offend someone's delicate fragile sense of control.


Not even close to being the same thing.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Clem said:


> What if a bakery posted an IQ test for you to take, because they didn't want to make a days pay from someone whose IQ was lower than theirs..
> 
> Call it anything you want, if you're in business, it's to make money, and refusing to make money because you are offended by what someone else does indicates you should not be running a business.


Who are you to tell someone how to run their business..?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> Who are you to tell someone how to run their business..?


Who is the baker to put a sign in the window welcoming me in with the promise I can purchase a cake only to say no, you’re kind aren’t welcome. A liar and a fraud?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What religion teaches that gays can't drive?
> 
> The point is that many religions have as a tenet that marriage is between a man and a woman. Until the Supreme Court created law from the bench, that was the law of the US as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a part of many religions and as such, should be a protected right under the 1st Amendment.


What religion teaches that baking and selling cakes is a religous rite?


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Ok, another take on it. There's a company situated just about 50 foot outside the city limits, and I live in the city. I needed a 6' chainlink fence installed so went to the business to see about what it would run. Fellow and I talked for a few minutes and he asked my address, I told him and he said, "I can't do that right now, not any time soon, either". I then asked if he had any time he MIGHT be able to do it and he said no. We talked for a bit longer, then I thanked him for his time and left.

This fellow had installed some minor fencing for me about 10 years ago. I'd heard talk that he was no longer installing *any* fences in the city because he was fed up with very picky & insane city regulations, but went to him first because I'd used him before, and because sometimes gossip is just gossip.

I went to someone else and got the fence installed with no problem.

The point being, he had the right to refuse my business for *whatever* reason was important to HIM. He did NOT get the money I was willing to pay. He was NOT the only business in town and someone else got the $$$.

Mon


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

frogmammy said:


> Ok, another take on it. There's a company situated just about 50 foot outside the city limits, and I live in the city. I needed a 6' chainlink fence installed so went to the business to see about what it would run. Fellow and I talked for a few minutes and he asked my address, I told him and he said, "I can't do that right now, not any time soon, either". I then asked if he had any time he MIGHT be able to do it and he said no. We talked for a bit longer, then I thanked him for his time and left.
> 
> This fellow had installed some minor fencing for me about 10 years ago. I'd heard talk that he was no longer installing *any* fences in the city because he was fed up with very picky & insane city regulations, but went to him first because I'd used him before, and because sometimes gossip is just gossip.
> 
> ...


The point is is that he would have refused to install the fence for anyone in your area that asked. Perfectly legal and understandable. Had he said I’m not going to install the fence for you because you’re a woman and the next day agreed to install the exact same type of fence for your male neighbor would you feel the same?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> What religion teaches that baking and selling cakes is a religous rite?


Who said any religion did?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Clem said:


> I've always liked this particular style of argument, in which your initial question, "What religion teaches that gays can't drive?" is a complete nonsequitur, in that nothing I said could be construed as what you said. Putting the words in my mouth, so to speak, and people who only read the most recent post will jump to the conclusion that I said some religion teaches that gays can't drive. I like that style of argument, because the people who follow the trail you've led go down your rabbit hole, instead of following the logical path.
> 
> Seriously, I actually admire misdirection as a form of communication. Sorta like when you're on fire, and point at somebody who isn't on fire and say "I bet he'd burn really hot"
> 
> ...


You said


> If I worked at a factory making cars, would I be within my rights to refuse to hook up the brakes because I was thinking some gay guy might buy this car and use the brakes to stop at a gay bar?


It had nothing to do with the poll question because it had nothing to do with religion. That's why I asked what religion teaches that gays can't drive.

The baker refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religious beliefs. The only way your example about refusing to hook up brakes is comparable is if it too is based on religious beliefs. You have no Constitutional right to not connect the brakes, but the baker either will or won't have the right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a gay couple based on how the Supreme Court rules. Or possibly they will send the case back to Colorado to be reheard.

The 1st Amendment guarantees his natural rights to freedom of speech and religious freedom, so it should be a 9-0 ruling in favor of the baker. But the 4 liberal members of the Court will vote against his individual rights because they believe in group rights overriding individual rights. It all comes down to whether Justice Kennedy will stand up for the 1st Amendment or not. I don't think he has the guts to.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> The point is is that he would have refused to install the fence for anyone in your area that asked. Perfectly legal and understandable. Had he said I’m not going to install the fence for you because you’re a woman and the next day agreed to install the exact same type of fence for your male neighbor would you feel the same?


Yes, I would. His choice to NOT take my money. Would get my fence elsewhere. What my neighbor does, or with whom, is his business, not mine.

We have several Bosnian restaurants that will serve women...eventually...if the kitchen's not closed in the last 2 seconds...or if they're not out of everything you order. Women (without a man in the group) are NOT wanted. So I go elsewhere. Simple, really.

Mon


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> You said
> 
> It had nothing to do with the poll question because it had nothing to do with religion. That's why I asked what religion teaches that gays can't drive.
> 
> ...



That all sounds like a bunch of political bull manure that don't belong in the singles forum.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> What religion teaches that baking and selling cakes is a religous rite?


 Any based on the Bible ?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Not that I know about, and ive went completely through it once and am 1/4th the way through it again.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Who said any religion did?


I believe you did when you said this -“The baker refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religous beliefs”.

If baking and selling cakes aren’t a relogous rite but part of his job what religous rite was being violated by doing his job?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

frogmammy said:


> Yes, I would. His choice to NOT take my money. Would get my fence elsewhere. What my neighbor does, or with whom, is his business, not mine.
> 
> We have several Bosnian restaurants that will serve women...eventually...if the kitchen's not closed in the last 2 seconds...or if they're not out of everything you order. Women (without a man in the group) are NOT wanted. So I go elsewhere. Simple, really.
> 
> Mon


Good for you. I’m glad you’re so tolerant. But such behavior does violate the law. Now extrapolate that to every fencer in the area having the same no dealing with women policy. Still complacent? Say it couldn’t happen. It has in my lifetime to other groups.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You said
> 
> It had nothing to do with the poll question because it had nothing to do with religion. That's why I asked what religion teaches that gays can't drive.
> 
> ...


But what speech was infringed or forced on the baker? Design of the cake was never discussed. For all we know the couple might have looked at the baker’s book of past designs and chosen the exact same cake the dog owners chose for the wedding of their pooches. ( the baker had no objection to that). In that case it’s hard to see how one cake is any more “expressive” of the bakers art than the other. Is one donut in the case different than another depending on who eats it?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

FarmboyBill said:


> Not that I know about, and ive went completely through it once and am 1/4th the way through it again.


There’s more to reading a book that viewing the words. I’ve read both the Kuma Sutra and playboy and women still assure me I don’t know everything about them. 
️


----------



## farmgal (Nov 12, 2005)

Everyone should be worried. This is another step into socialism. We do not want the government telling us what we need to do. It's not discriminating. It's his beliefs and he's free to have them. Get over that discriminating bullhicky mindset that the last administration brainwashed you into. Dividing our country ( cuz that's the way you create communism) your destroying our country one law at a time, one loss of freedom at a time. Smh.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I guess we all draw the line in different places. I think it is wrong for a bakery to ban homosexuals from coming into the bakery and buying anything on sale. But I think the baker has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake with two plastic dudes on top. If the baker finds two guys hijacking a Holy sacred ceremony to celebrate their lifelong sinful behavior, he should be able to decline being a part of it. IMHO.

A couple years ago, a diesel repair facility, near Grand Rapids, posted that he would not provide services to any openly gay people. It made national news. People picketed. Vandals spray painted his building.
But in reality, perhaps a stereotype, few openly gay people drive diesel trucks, so did this proclamation really impact anyone?
Then, to take it a step farther, a point FBB mentioned, if you are taking your truck in to be repaired, why do you need to be flamboyant? Just go in, get the truck repaired and leave your feathered boa home.

Asking the question if gays should be refused service has the nation split. But I'd like that question asked after the public was told the details and actual events to the baker's dilemma.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)




----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> But what speech was infringed or forced on the baker? Design of the cake was never discussed. For all we know the couple might have looked at the baker’s book of past designs and chosen the exact same cake the dog owners chose for the wedding of their pooches. ( the baker had no objection to that). In that case it’s hard to see how one cake is any more “expressive” of the bakers art than the other. Is one donut in the case different than another depending on who eats it?


If wedding cakes aren't different, why do people pay hundreds of dollars for them? Why do they choose one baker over another? If the baker made a wedding cake with the typical bride and groom on it, would that have been acceptable to the gay couple? 

I believe this was a religious liberty case and not a free speech issue. It was only speech in that the decorating was specific to a gay marriage.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I guess we all draw the line in different places. I think it is wrong for a bakery to ban homosexuals from coming into the bakery and buying anything on sale. But I think the baker has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake with two plastic dudes on top. If the baker finds two guys hijacking a Holy sacred ceremony to celebrate their lifelong sinful behavior, he should be able to decline being a part of it. IMHO.
> 
> A couple years ago, a diesel repair facility, near Grand Rapids, posted that he would not provide services to any openly gay people. It made national news. People picketed. Vandals spray painted his building.
> But in reality, perhaps a stereotype, few openly gay people drive diesel trucks, so did this proclamation really impact anyone?
> ...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I believe you did when you said this -“The baker refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religous beliefs”.
> 
> If baking and selling cakes aren’t a relogous rite but part of his job what religous rite was being violated by doing his job?


I know you are smarter than this, so I'm bowing out. You know the answer to the question.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I guess we all draw the line in different places. I think it is wrong for a bakery to ban homosexuals from coming into the bakery and buying anything on sale. But I think the baker has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake with two plastic dudes on top. If the baker finds two guys hijacking a Holy sacred ceremony to celebrate their lifelong sinful behavior, he should be able to decline being a part of it. IMHO.
> 
> A couple years ago, a diesel repair facility, near Grand Rapids, posted that he would not provide services to any openly gay people. It made national news. People picketed. Vandals spray painted his building.
> But in reality, perhaps a stereotype, few openly gay people drive diesel trucks, so did this proclamation really impact anyone?
> ...



Who are you to tell someone how to dress ? You sound like the guy complaining someone won't bake him a cake


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> I know you are smarter than this, so I'm bowing out. You know the answer to the question.


You don't have the willpower to stay away from donuts so I'm sure you don't have the willpower to stay away from this thread.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

OK, so there ya go. People say, IF something offends you, just don't look at it, BUT I WAS FORCED to look at all the pics to get to the bottom of them to see what else had been posted.
That's EXACTLY what I complained about in my OP. IF they want to do that, DO IT WHERE I CANT SEE IT, Ill reciprocate by not holding a womans hands in public.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

FarmboyBill said:


> OK, so there ya go. People say, IF something offends you, just don't look at it, BUT I WAS FORCED to look at all the pics to get to the bottom of them to see what else had been posted.
> That's EXACTLY what I complained about in my OP. IF they want to do that, DO IT WHERE I CANT SEE IT, Ill reciprocate by not holding a womans hands in public.


Don't post about dancing with your head between the girls then, it might offend someone.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm wearing a gay wedding cake for Halloween next year. and in case anybody gets the wrong idea, I'm going to wear a lot of guns. too.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Good for you. I’m glad you’re so tolerant. But such behavior does violate the law. Now extrapolate that to every fencer in the area having the same no dealing with women policy. Still complacent? Say it couldn’t happen.  It has in my lifetime to other groups.


And how did you personally help them?

As to the fence, I'd then either go out of the area to get what I wanted, ask a male friend to pick one up for me, do it myself, or find an alternative fence.

I think Haypoint has a valid point when he said he thought the baker had a "right to refuse to create". The key word being create.

And just to muddle things up a bit...the minister who married my husband and I was gay and was in a long term relationship of many years. Several family members tried to get us to get a different minister but we refused...the man was a friend of both of us, a good & valued person. Still is.

Mon


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

frogmammy said:


> And how did you personally help them?
> 
> As to the fence, I'd then either go out of the area to get what I wanted, ask a male friend to pick one up for me, do it myself, or find an alternative fence.
> 
> ...


What religion was the minister, out of curiosity? How long ago was this?


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> So tired of minorities being the majority....


Seem like the the "very noisy minorities, backed up by the very out of touch celebrities, and media use "shouting down anyone they disagree with"'

They just found out you don't have to be noisy....just able to vote in a election...rather than a 5 gal bucket, a stick, and bull horn.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Who are you to tell someone how to dress ? You sound like the guy complaining someone won't bake him a cake


In the context of wanting to get your diesel truck repaired. We all have to observe societal norms. If the Bank says take your hat off, you take your hat off. Not a big deal. If the diesel truck repair shops doesn't provide service to openly gay people, don't go out of your way to copy the mannerisms and flamboyancy of gays. I'm not dictating what anyone wears, but if you won't comply with the simple request by the owner of this business, give your money to someone that will.

If the only way I could get my truck repaired or a cake baked was to refrain from tossing my head, flipping my hair, batting my eyes or other overtly exaggerated female actions, then for those few moments, I'd act within the social norms of the rest of society.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> In the context of wanting to get your diesel truck repaired. We all have to observe societal norms. If the Bank says take your hat off, you take your hat off. Not a big deal. If the diesel truck repair shops doesn't provide service to openly gay people, don't go out of your way to copy the mannerisms and flamboyancy of gays. I'm not dictating what anyone wears, but if you won't comply with the simple request by the owner of this business, give your money to someone that will.
> 
> If the only way I could get my truck repaired or a cake baked was to refrain from tossing my head, flipping my hair, batting my eyes or other overtly exaggerated female actions, then for those few moments, I'd act within the social norms of the rest of society.


Kind of like if a lunch counter in Alabama says they don’t serve blacks, don’t try to get them to serve you if you’re black? Maybe try wearing real pale makeup and try to sneak in?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> OK, so there ya go. People say, IF something offends you, just don't look at it, BUT I WAS FORCED to look at all the pics to get to the bottom of them to see what else had been posted.
> That's EXACTLY what I complained about in my OP. IF they want to do that, DO IT WHERE I CANT SEE IT, Ill reciprocate by not holding a womans hands in public.


Did they make you twitch a little?


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> What religion was the minister, out of curiosity? How long ago was this?


Don't know right now where I put the certificate, but it was in 1985 (DH and I were late 30's) and he was a minister of an Agape church, don't know which one (it's on the certificate). DH and I were NOT churchgoers, so which particular church was not of large importance to us. In fact, DH's mother wanted us to use a Unitarian minister which we would not have objected to if we hadn't already asked our friend. A friend is a friend, not tossed aside because of someone else's preferences, or prejudices.

Mon


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Couple more of these and I'm gonna have the most flamboyant coat on the mountain, hopefully Costco won't judge me and still lets shop.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> If wedding cakes aren't different, why do people pay hundreds of dollars for them? Why do they choose one baker over another? If the baker made a wedding cake with the typical bride and groom on it, would that have been acceptable to the gay couple?
> 
> I believe this was a religious liberty case and not a free speech issue. It was only speech in that the decorating was specific to a gay marriage.


Because they like to waste their money?

I don’t know what would have been acceptable to the couple because the question was never asked.

Again, no design was discussed so how do we know the decoration was “specific to a gay marriage.”? Isn’t all fondant created equal. Aren’t all buttercream roses the same?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I know you are smarter than this, so I'm bowing out. You know the answer to the question.


Really, I’m not. I’ve never had anyone explain how baking and selling cakes is a religous rite. I was hoping you could enlighten me and I could get more smart.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Lisa, Didn't make me twith. Did make me gag a bit. Course, I had just finished a big bowl of chili that was kinda hot lol.

Dad, If/when people complain about my chin on the girls, Ill not post about it


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> Lisa, Didn't make me twith. Did make me gag a bit.


I’m so not going there


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

oneraddad said:


> Couple more of these and I'm gonna have the most flamboyant coat on the mountain, hopefully Costco won't judge me and still lets shop.


When manly men look at other manly men wearing cat coats, they think, in a most detached way, "That's hot"


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

FarmboyBill said:


> Lisa, Didn't make me twith. Did make me gag a bit.
> 
> Dad, If/when people complain about my chin on the girls, Ill not post about it





Lisa in WA said:


> I’m so not going there



Size matters


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

U BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD PEOPLE LOL


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

FarmboyBill said:


> Lisa, Didn't make me twith. Did make me gag a bit. Course, I had just finished a big bowl of chili that was kinda hot lol.
> 
> Dad, If/when people complain about my chin on the girls, Ill not post about it



They've complained about the way you talk about "wimmins" for years Bill and you keep it up every chance you get. This forum is not set up to talk about gays and politics but you continued even after Tom asked you to stop. So if [content deleted]* can't respect this forum I have no respect for you.


*Content originally in brackets exceeded site profanity limits by using a proper name for a profanity to dodge the auto censor.

Edited by Shrek 12/7/2017 at 5:32PM CST


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> They've complained about the way you talk about "wimmins" for years Bill and you keep it up every chance you get. This forum is not set up to talk about gays and politics but you continued even after Tom asked you to stop. So if [content deleted]* can't respect this forum I have no respect for you.
> 
> 
> *Content originally in brackets exceeded site profanity limits by using a proper name for a profanity to dodge the auto censor.
> ...


LOL...the irony. Cut out the dodge around a naughty word but for sure...leave the ugly sentiments. I’m kind of in awe that “[content deleted]*”
didn’t trip anyone’s decency censors. Someone has his priorities all screwed up.



*Content originally in brackets exceeded site profanity limits by quoting deleted material

Edited by Terri 12/12/2017 at 6:00 PM CST


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

frogmammy said:


> And how did you personally help them?
> 
> As to the fence, I'd then either go out of the area to get what I wanted, ask a male friend to pick one up for me, do it myself, or find an alternative fence.
> 
> ...


Since I was quite young my participation at that time consisted of sitting politely at the dinner table and treating with respect the young enlisted men of color my father would invite over for holidays and Sunday dinners because they had no place else to go. An action that didn’t endear him to all of his fellow non-coms. In my adult life I’ve striven to treat people as equals and supported and voted for those who share my views on these issues. And I’ll continue to do so.

It’s great that you’re so tolerant that you’d go to all that effort to get a fence rightly due you. But it doesn’t mean everyone is or should be forced to jump through such hoops to do so. 

Since the baker didn’t know what he was going to be asked to “create” it’s a pretty weak argument. What’s different about creating one three tier cake with white fondant and buttercream flowers from another three tier cake with white fondant and buttercream flowers?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

oneraddad said:


> They've complained about the way you talk about "wimmins" for years Bill and you keep it up every chance you get. This forum is not set up to talk about gays and politics but you continued even after Tom asked you to stop. So if [content deleted]* can't respect this forum I have no respect for you.
> 
> 
> *Content originally in brackets exceeded site profanity limits by using a proper name for a profanity to dodge the auto censor.
> ...



So I can't say use my proper name (the one my parents gave me at birth) on this forum, but it's OK for other to call lesbians derogatory names ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> So I can't say use my proper name (the one my parents gave me at birth) on this forum, but it's OK for other to call lesbians derogatory names ?


You can't use it as an excuse to troll.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't use it as an excuse to troll.


Seems like he was using it more as a response to trolls.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> Seems like he was using it more as a response to trolls.


They can talk to each other sometimes.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't use it as an excuse to troll.



Are you trolling me ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Are you trolling me ?


I answered your question.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

oneraddad said:


> So I can't say use my proper name (the one my parents gave me at birth) on this forum, but it's OK for other to call lesbians derogatory names ?


In the context of referring to your given name it would be allowed, however when used in thinly veiled "Beavis & Butthead" skit profanity context, it is not.

In your reply you called a couple members the proper name thinly veiled profanity dodge around and I deleted it as many of our admins have told us such dodges are not fitting for use on HT.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’m so not going there


Remember what I said about "either/or"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmboyBill said:


> OK, so there ya go. People say, IF something offends you, just don't look at it, *BUT I WAS FORCED to look* at all the pics to get to the bottom of them to see what else had been posted.
> That's EXACTLY what I complained about in my OP. IF they want to do that, DO IT WHERE I CANT SEE IT, Ill reciprocate by not holding a womans hands in public.


You could have scrolled past them without looking.
It was pretty obvious what they were before the first one fully loaded.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Oneraddad: That is some nice cat. Many like that out there? A very few scrawny bobcats around here, a black bear now and then, lots of deer. Mostly just junk varmints, ****, fox, etc. Thousands of acres of Corps of Engineers lands but nothing notable in the way of wildlife.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

How was I to look away from the screen and scrool down to the end. How would I know WITHOUT looking at it when the pics ended??????????


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmboyBill said:


> How was I to look away from the screen and scrool down to the end. How would I know WITHOUT looking at it when the pics ended??????????


Why do a bunch of friendly people holding hands bother you?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> Who is the baker to put a sign in the window welcoming me in with the promise I can purchase a cake only to say no, you’re kind aren’t welcome. A liar and a fraud?


I'm sure he welcomes everyone but jerks with an agenda


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> What religion teaches that baking and selling cakes is a religous rite?


Nobody has claimed such...


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

frogmammy said:


> Yes, I would. His choice to NOT take my money. Would get my fence elsewhere. What my neighbor does, or with whom, is his business, not mine.
> 
> We have several Bosnian restaurants that will serve women...eventually...if the kitchen's not closed in the last 2 seconds...or if they're not out of everything you order. Women (without a man in the group) are NOT wanted. So I go elsewhere. Simple, really.
> 
> Mon


That sucks..


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

farmgal said:


> Everyone should be worried. This is another step into socialism. We do not want the government telling us what we need to do. It's not discriminating. It's his beliefs and he's free to have them. Get over that discriminating bullhicky mindset that the last administration brainwashed you into. Dividing our country ( cuz that's the way you create communism) your destroying our country one law at a time, one loss of freedom at a time. Smh.


Agreed....


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> Nobody has claimed such...


Of course they have. Read the previous posts in this thread. I’ve already pointed it out once. How can it be a violation of the bakers free practice of religion if baking and selling cakes isn’t a religous practice?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> I'm sure he welcomes everyone but jerks with an agenda


You mean an agenda like buying the very product he offers for sale? How dare anyone do such a thing.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> Good for you. I’m glad you’re so tolerant. But such behavior does violate the law. Now extrapolate that to every fencer in the area having the same no dealing with women policy. Still complacent? Say it couldn’t happen. It has in my lifetime to other groups.


No... it does not


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I’ll make y’all a deal. I won’t make an issue of businesses not serving someone wearing a rainbow t-shirt and you won’t make an issue when I don’t serve the guy wearing a cross around his neck. Fair enough?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> No... it does not


So, you’re saying that people haven’t been discriminated against and not served or even allowed entrance because of who they are in the last 60 years? You should study history. You should even be aware that it’s perfectly legal to not serve certain groups or even consider them for employment in many parts of our great land.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Lisa in WA said:


> What religion was the minister, out of curiosity? How long ago was this?


To quote a very famous anti american politician... "What difference does it make?"


mmoetc said:


> Really, I’m not. I’ve never had anyone explain how baking and selling cakes is a religous rite. I was hoping you could enlighten me and I could get more smart.


Nobody has ever said anything about baking or selling cakes being a religious rite.... but then again some folks do love to twist the words of others in order to further their agenda....


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> I'm sure he welcomes everyone but jerks with an agenda


Woolworth’s welcomed everyone but these “jerks with an agenda”.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> So, you’re saying that people haven’t been discriminated against and not served or even allowed entrance because of who they are in the last 60 years? You should study history. You should even be aware that it’s perfectly legal to not serve certain groups or even consider them for employment in many parts of our great land.


There you go again..attempting to twist someone's words into something it isn't in order to further an agenda...I said nothing of the sort.. if you say that I did I'll call you a LIAR


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Lisa in WA said:


> View attachment 63623
> 
> 
> Woolworth’s welcomed everyone but these “jerks with an agenda”.


The agenda to be treated just like anyone else? What an awful agenda.

Sorry Lisa. Responded before I paid attention to who posted. Not meant as a dig at you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> There you go again..attempting to twist someone's words into something it isn't in order to further an agenda...I said nothing of the sort.. if you say that I did I'll call you a LIAR


Call me whatever you wish. You responded with “No, it does not.” to my previous post. It was rather vague as to what you were referring to, my assertion that not selling a woman a fence only because she was a woman is illegal, or that within my lifetime groups of people were discriminated against. Both are true statements.

I took a stab in the dark as to which you referred to but my answer contained no falsehoods. Within my lifetime organized discrimination was, and still is, legal. I’d like it not to be. For your sake also.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> The agenda to be treated just like anyone else? What an awful agenda.


Anybody that comes to my business and demands that I make something for them gets treated the same... they're escorted right out the door


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> Call me whatever you wish. You responded with “No, it does not.” to my previous post. It was rather vague as to what you were referring to, my assertion that not selling a woman a fence only because she was a woman is illegal, or that within my lifetime groups of people were discriminated against. Both are true statements.
> 
> I took a stab in the dark as to which you referred to but my answer contained no falsehoods. Within my lifetime organized discrimination was, and still is, legal. I’d like it not to be. For your sake also.


He didn't sell her the fence because it was within city limits.. not because of her gender


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> So I can walk into any business and force them to prepare and crea
> 
> Keep trying.... the race card doesn't apply here


Not sure what you want them to prepare or create but if the business is open to the public and it’s the exact same thing they provide to the person in front of you or would provide to the person behind you the answer is yes. Why should it be different?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> He didn't sell her the fence because it was within city limits.. not because of her gender


You should work on reading every post in a thread.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> Anybody that comes to my business and demands that I make something for them gets treated the same... they're escorted right out the door


Good for you. It’s a nice consistent policy and perfectly legal. Now, were you to serve the gay guy his demands and deny the Christian his because you didn’t like his religion you’d run afoul of the law.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> Good for you. It’s a nice consistent policy and perfectly legal. Now, were you to serve the gay guy his demands and deny the Christian his because you didn’t like his religion you’d run afoul of the law.


As an artist/craftsman/human being, I have the right to accept or refuse any commissioned work... nobody.. no matter who they may be has a right to my labor without my consent.. and I have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time and I owe no one an explanation.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> You should work on reading every post in a thread.


As fast and prolific as some posters are that's a challenge..lol


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> As an artist/craftsman/human being, I have the right to accept or refuse any commissioned work... nobody.. no matter who they may be has a right to my labor without my consent.. and I have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time and I owe no one an explanation.


Again, we’re talking the difference between commissioned work and standard product. But you’re right that you owe no one an explanation but volunteering one can get you into trouble.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> I’ll make y’all a deal. I won’t make an issue of businesses not serving someone wearing a rainbow t-shirt and you won’t make an issue when I don’t serve the guy wearing a cross around his neck. Fair enough?


A person's manner of dress makes no difference to me...the only thing that grinds my gears is when people go out of their way to bully another because they have an agenda to push...and it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is,race,ethnicity etc... what matter is if they are intentionally doing what they are doing to try and force their will upon another... when they could easily have received the same service elsewhere.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You have all kinds of rights, as a human, and an American. However, if you are doing business, you are licensed under federal, state, and local law. In order to get and maintain that license, you have to conform to the laws.

It don't really matter how uncomfortable other people's sexuality makes you. Bullying also extends to telling people you won't serve them, in direct violation of the law. Or acting like you will. Or pretending your rights to be a bigot are more important than other people's rights to cake.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> Again, we’re talking the difference between commissioned work and standard product. But you’re right that you owe no one an explanation but volunteering one can get you into trouble.


Agreed...


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Man that pic brought me back. Woolworths AND Kresges had that kind of setup for a lunch counter. At noon people would stand behind those stools and wait for the person in them to finish eating, it was so crowded. I was standing behind a person, Next to that person was a black man. Likely the only one there. The person in front of me finished and I stepped aside so they could exit, then I took that stool. I had seen the black guy ask a passing waitress for a cup of coffee while I was standing. When I sat down, and she was wiping off the remains in front of me on the counter, he asked again. Then she came back and took my order. I asked for a cup of coffee, which she imeadiatly got for me, while making up my order. I pushed it side to the black man. When she passed by to take another order, she saw what I had done. It was a long time before I got my order. lol


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Clem said:


> You have all kinds of rights, as a human, and an American. However, if you are doing business, you are licensed under federal, state, and local law. In order to get and maintain that license, you have to conform to the laws.
> 
> It don't really matter how uncomfortable other people's sexuality makes you. Bullying also extends to telling people you won't serve them, in direct violation of the law. Or acting like you will. Or pretending your rights to be a bigot are more important than other people's rights to cake.


Waaaaaaa!!!! Waaa!!!!!!! Waa!!!!!!! Look at me!!!! I need some attention!!!!


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Yeah, we can see that.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> Kind of like if a lunch counter in Alabama says they don’t serve blacks, don’t try to get them to serve you if you’re black? Maybe try wearing real pale makeup and try to sneak in?


I don't think we are talking about color, or sex for that matter. I guess I never thought of Blacks, or women as[Content deleted]*.



*Content originally in brackets exceeded site civility limits.

Edited by Terri on 12/12/17 at 6:13PM CST


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I don't think we are talking about color, or sex for that matter. I guess I never thought of Blacks, or women [Content deleted].


What we are talking about, is oppressed groups. Women, people of color, gay people.
Frankly, your comment [Content deleted]^.
You disgust me.

*Content originally in brackets exceeds site civility limits

^ quotes content that exceeds site civility limits.


Edited by Terri on 12/12/17 at 6:20 PM CST


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I’ll make y’all a deal. I won’t make an issue of businesses not serving someone wearing a rainbow t-shirt and you won’t make an issue when I don’t serve the guy wearing a cross around his neck. Fair enough?


I think I'm cool with that. I'll tuck my cross necklace into my shirt when I go into your scented candle shop and you put a shirt over your tee shirt that reads, " Closets are for Clothes" when you come in to get your diesel repaired.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I think I'm cool with that. I'll tuck my cross necklace into my shirt when I go into your scented candle shop and you put a shirt over your tee shirt that reads, " Closets are for Clothes" when you come in to get your diesel repaired.


Nope. I’m not asking you to hide anything about yourself. The Jesus fish plaque on your car, the fact I saw you walk out of the local evangelical church or anything else. I should have the same right to say no to you for your religion as is claimed by those who wish to tell gays no.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think as we venture out on this sexual thin ice, we normalize some kooks, too. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/genderfluid-parents-non-binary-son/


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I thank God that I don't have to fight to be accepted for who I am every day. I've been blessed for the past 66 years to have been white and heterosexual. However, I feel a great sense of sadness for the millions of people who weren't born with the privileges I was, and have to hide away, or face scorn, everywhere they go.

It's a shame there is so little mercy and decency left.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Nope. I’m not asking you to hide anything about yourself. The Jesus fish plaque on your car, the fact I saw you walk out of the local evangelical church or anything else. I should have the same right to say no to you for your religion as is claimed by those who wish to tell gays no.


Sounds like, in this scenario, you are being more intolerant that I am. Right? I'm not talking about establishing a gay person register, so when a gay person masquerade as an average citizen, I'd be able to deny them service, based on the registry. What I'm talking about is recognizing that PDA isn't cool most times and I don't want two dudes making out in my diesel repair shop.
Knock off the overtly gay mannerisms and I'll not question you and your customers if they have found Jesus. Sort of a middle ground.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Sounds like, in this scenario, you are being more intolerant that I am. Right? I'm not talking about establishing a gay person register, so when a gay person masquerade as an average citizen, I'd be able to deny them service, based on the registry. What I'm talking about is recognizing that PDA isn't cool most times and I don't want two dudes making out in my diesel repair shop.
> Knock off the overtly gay mannerisms and I'll not question you and your customers if they have found Jesus. Sort of a middle ground.


It’s perfectly acceptable to not allow pda in your shop. But that should go to you mauling your girlfriend also. But I didn’t mention that, did I. 

All I’m asking is that everyone gets the same opportunity to deny service based on their own personal feelings about another. Isn’t that what we’re talking about? If you can discriminate against gays because you think they’re immoral why shouldn’t I be able to discriminate against you because I find your beliefs immoral?

As for “gay mannerisms”. Really? I can introduce you to a great guy who’s been married for 25 years to a great woman and has four great kids who you would deny service to because of his “gay mannerisms”. Judging a book by its cover is a fool’s errand.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Sounds like, in this scenario, you are being more intolerant that I am. Right? I'm not talking about establishing a gay person register, so when a gay person masquerade as an average citizen, I'd be able to deny them service, based on the registry. What I'm talking about is recognizing that PDA isn't cool most times and I don't want two dudes making out in my diesel repair shop.
> Knock off the overtly gay mannerisms and I'll not question you and your customers if they have found Jesus. Sort of a middle ground.


How about when my wife pulls up in her Subaru with the rainbow bumper sticker the previous owner affixed and gets out with her short haircut, men’s jeans, flannel shirt and work boots. Enough stereotypes there for you to judge her sexual preference and decide whether she’s worthy of service? Social norms are for those with little imagination or free will.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Again, we’re talking the difference between commissioned work and standard product. But you’re right that you owe no one an explanation but volunteering one can get you into trouble.


 Actually the baker offered them standard product but they insist he create a commissioned work of art. 
Those were his answers to questions he was asked in a interview today.


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Of course they have. Read the previous posts in this thread. I’ve already pointed it out once. How can it be a violation of the bakers free practice of religion if baking and selling cakes isn’t a religous practice?


I can't help but laugh every time this topic comes up, I would think by now you would have read the entire story but you choose to focus on anything negative. The bakers who were sued have and will sell birthday cakes, retirement cakes and party cakes to anyone AND everyone, they have in the past. They do not ask sexual preferances of thier customers, however when a couple came in and declared thier preferance, they choose to honor their religous beliefs and declind.

If you don't want people to place judgement then keep your preferances to yourself. There was a time when people just lived thier lives and didn't feel the need to get in others peoples face to demand acceptance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Actually the baker offered them standard product but they insist he create a commissioned work of art.
> Those were his answers to questions he was asked in a interview today.


No, he didn’t. 

“Almost as soon as they sat down in the bakery on that July day, Phillips told them he wouldn’t make what they wanted.

"I said, ‘I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you brownies, cookies, anything else. I just don’t do cakes for same-sex weddings,’" Phillips said, amid the cookies and sheet cakes on display in his strip-mall shop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...lash-at-u-s-supreme-court-is-no-piece-of-cake

He later said that he wouldn’t even allow the couples straight friends to buy them such a cake to use in their celebration.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> I can't help but laugh every time this topic comes up, I would think by now you would have read the entire story but you choose to focus on anything negative. The bakers who were sued have and will sell birthday cakes, retirement cakes and party cakes to anyone AND everyone, they have in the past. They do not ask sexual preferances of thier customers, however when a couple came in and declared thier preferance, they choose to honor their religous beliefs and declind.
> 
> If you don't want people to place judgement then keep your preferances to yourself. There was a time when people just lived thier lives and didn't feel the need to get in others peoples face to demand acceptance.


Exactly how does one keep their preference to themselves when the object of that love and devotion is sitting next to them?

And the minute I have the ability to say I don’t bake cakes for weddings in your church I’ll walk away from this.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Know what?

I am grateful to live in a country where people can argue about the sales of cakes, instead of living where people are preoccupied with survival.

God Bless America, and let the argument begin again!


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mm I doubt if haypoint goes round mauling his SO in public

NOTHER THANG. GPs have a parade in Tulsa once a year. I accidently was at one 20yrs ago. They wernt quiet as outlandish as they are now, and I didn't know what Id stumbled into for awhile. Since I was there, I watched them. They wernt as blatent in public as they are now.
POINT IS
How come they merit a parade, when other minorities don't? U don't see black people roaming up and down streets in Tulsa, or other ethnicities either. EVEN WHITES don't have a parade specifically because they are white.
I think its like a recruitment drive, kinda like the KKK has here, there, and yonder. They encourage closet gays to join them, and feel wanted, and able to express their gayness in public.
IOn case your wondering, Im very inquisitive. Ive been to black clubs, Mexican clubs, biker clubs, country clubs, gay and lesibian clubs. I separate them cause, when I was in the lesbian club, I was the only guy there, and I didn't stay long lol. That was the only time I was kinda afraid to be in a club.


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly how does one keep their preference to themselves when the object of that love and devotion is sitting next to them?
> 
> And the minute I have the ability to say I don’t bake cakes for weddings in your church I’ll walk away from this.


Are you saying that humans don't have the ability to use self control?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> Are you saying that humans don't have the ability to use self control?


What does exercising self control have to do with walking into a business with the person you love? Why should anyone have to hide that preference? In the case being discussed there’s no indication the couple wasn’t exercising self control in front of Mom. How would they have hidden the wedding participants and why should they have to.

Again, why should the religous be able to discriminate but not be discriminated against?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> mm I doubt if haypoint goes round mauling his SO in public
> 
> NOTHER THANG. GPs have a parade in Tulsa once a year. I accidently was at one 20yrs ago. They wernt quiet as outlandish as they are now, and I didn't know what Id stumbled into for awhile. Since I was there, I watched them. They wernt as blatent in public as they are now.
> POINT IS
> ...


Want a parade? Organize one. What’s stopping you. Why does Christmas get so many parades but I haven’t seen one for Ramadan, Yom Kippur or Theravada?

The best bar tending gig I had during college was in the lone gay bar in a smallish town. I got overtipped by both sides and had a great time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Actually the baker offered them standard product but they insist he create a commissioned work of art.


So you're saying they asked for the *same service* he provides for everyone else.
Why keep repeating what is already known?

If they wanted a "standard product" they could have bought a ready made cake at a grocery store.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

South of East Lansing, a family of Christians operated an orchard and sold their apples at the East Lansing Farmers Market. Their farm is so lovely, groups held picnics, reunions and weddings there. They even had a facebook page. Someone asked if they would open their farm to a gay wedding. They replied that since they were Christian and this was their home, that they would not. Word got passed to the managers of the Farmers Market and this family was barred from selling their apples, due to the anti-discrimination policy of this Market. That this is a big liberal college town (did I just repeat myself?) Their refusal to open their farm to a gay wedding branded them as unfit to participate in the farmers market.
Odd thing, no one was refused, just the question posed. Eventually, they were allowed to return to their spot at the market.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> South of East Lansing, a family of Christians operated an orchard and sold their apples at the East Lansing Farmers Market. Their farm is so lovely, groups held picnics, reunions and weddings there. They even had a facebook page. Someone asked if they would open their farm to a gay wedding. They replied that since they were Christian and this was their home, that they would not. Word got passed to the managers of the Farmers Market and this family was barred from selling their apples, due to the anti-discrimination policy of this Market. That this is a big liberal college town (did I just repeat myself?) Their refusal to open their farm to a gay wedding branded them as unfit to participate in the farmers market.
> Odd thing, no one was refused, just the question posed. Eventually, they were allowed to return to their spot at the market.


And the point of this story is?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

We've had a couple decades of the normalization process for same sex relationships. Forget the two centuries of mostly universal rejection by nearly every civilization, every religion and every culture. We get cowboys sex, TV shows and every sort of demands for further acceptance. Like the violence we see in movies and TV, we normalize things by keeping them in front of the public.
It has been a near equal taboo of sex with children. Is that different because they are children? I'd hope so, but it is just another old fashion social standard. You want to draw your moral line in the sand at accepting gay marriage and accepting that male to male is normal. I draw my line closer to the civilization guide AKA Bible. Do you accept those that draw their moral line in the sand to include man-boy sex? Whoa. How do you get so darn judgmental? Where's your live and let live? Child brides is far more historically common than man-man sex. You good with that "freedom"?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And the point of this story is?


There are people in society looking for ways to feel discriminated against. If you think this is about a wedding cake, you are mistaken. It is about punishing everyone that refuses to embrace their chosen live style. It is manifesting itself in many segments of society. Those that refuse to embrace them are to be driven out of business,


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> We've had a couple decades of the normalization process for same sex relationships. Forget the two centuries of mostly universal rejection by nearly every civilization, every religion and every culture. We get cowboys sex, TV shows and every sort of demands for further acceptance. Like the violence we see in movies and TV, we normalize things by keeping them in front of the public.
> It has been a near equal taboo of sex with children. Is that different because they are children? I'd hope so, but it is just another old fashion social standard. You want to draw your moral line in the sand at accepting gay marriage and accepting that male to male is normal. I draw my line closer to the civilization guide AKA Bible. Do you accept those that draw their moral line in the sand to include man-boy sex? Whoa. How do you get so darn judgmental? Where's your live and let live? Child brides is far more historically common than man-man sex. You good with that "freedom"?


My line is whatever two or more consenting adults wish to do with or to each other in private is none of my, or the government’s, business. That’s what I’m good with. It’s a line that gives everyone the same freedoms. 

My line is that everyone is entitled to the same freedoms. It’s a pretty basic line. I’ll ask again, but again expecting no answer, why the religous should be free to discriminate but not subject to discrimination?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> There are people in society looking for ways to feel discriminated against. If you think this is about a wedding cake, you are mistaken. It is about punishing everyone that refuses to embrace their chosen live style. It is manifesting itself in many segments of society. Those that refuse to embrace them are to be driven out of business,


Funny, it seemed to be about another person in Michigan who wanted to discriminate against others and had that right affirmed even though he can’t be discriminated against for his preferences.

You’re right, it’s not just about a wedding cake. It’s about everyone being treated equally which, I thought, was a founding principle of our great land.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> No, he didn’t.
> 
> “Almost as soon as they sat down in the bakery on that July day, Phillips told them he wouldn’t make what they wanted.
> 
> ...


OK I don’t get it first you say that he didn’t tell them what you later quote them saying he said. 
In other words our two quotes seem to be in agreement and yet you are disagreeing. 

So what are you in disagreement about?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> OK I don’t get it first you say that he didn’t tell them what you later quote them saying he said.
> In other words our two quotes seem to be in agreement and yet you are disagreeing.
> 
> So what are you in disagreement about?


You said the baker offered them “standard product”. He did but he also indicated he wouldn’t sell them any of that standard product if it was to be used to celebrate their wedding. He indicated he wouldn’t have sold them a plain sheet cake were it to be used in the celebration. So, again, it’s not about creating anything special. It’s about not selling them the same products he bakes and sells every day if he disapproves of those buying them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t think he disapproves of WHO is buying his cakes. 
That in spite of the fact that they have proved themselves again and again to be ignorant Philistineswho are not worthy of a cake. 
I’m sorry that you do not recognize the artistry in baking a cake notice I didn’t say decorating a cake I said baking the cake they not only failed to recognize that art they refuse to recognize the very art they came in to get. some of the art of his decoration and his skill

It’s very insulting to any artistto think that you can just walk in and say here’s $100 be creative and buy a piece of the soul of an artist and it doesn’t just automatically flow on demand.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

I have not been keeping up with this issue in depth, because I don't care deeply one way or another about stuff like this, but is this just another goofy meme, or does any of this factor into the issue at all?


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

What I don't understand, is why they couldn't have bought a very nice traditional wedding cake, bring it to the venue and then stick a couple of plastic dudes on top to make it suitable for their occasion? Maybe they just wanted to memorialize their special day in a more newsworthy manner?

.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Was that just a sneaky way to get a. Nasty political meme on HT?


Not at all, because I am so politically neutral that I have never voted a day in my life, and never will.

I meant every word I said, not being sneaky or disguising anything. I honestly wondered why this couple chose not to use the option to buy a nice traditional wedding cake (like anyone else) that would dignify any ceremony (including theirs), and then add their own embellishments on top to make it a special occasion for them.

Instead, their day was marred by media drama and all the negative stuff that was to be expected. Surely they knew that would be coming, especially considering that people are not exactly tolerant of ANYTHING these days, much less gays. If I were part of a gay couple I would want my day to be a pleasant, memorable one not one of easily avoidable strife... They could have had a gorgeous cake decked out in their wedding colors and simply added their own dudes on top.

By the way, I will never be gay, but I am not a gay-basher. I grew up in New Orleans (home of the most extravagant drag queen festivals on earth), and do not suffer homophobia. But I do suffer from common sense observations.


.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Whatever, kid.

Have an easy evening.

.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I have not seen ANY poster here that I would consider to be homophobic. Uncomfortable, yes, but not homophobic. There is a difference.

When I think of homophobia I think about things like what happened to Matthew Shepard, and that is very different from saying that a baker has the right to refuse to sell someone a cake.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Im not grinding any ax.
I believe, like Cajun , and I said as much that they could have bought the cake and taken it anywhere and already have another male figurine ready to place on the cake, and nobody at the bakery, or the wedding need be the wiser.
I have known a couple gay people, I guess you could say were aquaintances.
I don't see men and women walking in public, as a general rule, holding hands, and id like not to see gay people doing it either.
I cant change any laws, and I cant change any opinions. BUT I can state my opinion, and I have done so without intending to hurt anybody on here.
IF I go into a gay bar, then ive givin up my right to condim anyone in there, as they are doing what they do in a place pubically known as a gay bar. IF I don't like what I see, I can look another way, or leave. They are doing what they do privately, for the most part, and they welcome anybody who can live with what they do. I do think they try to be somewhat considerate if they know there is someone who may not be all that comfortable in seeing all that goes on and try to tone their actions down a bit. Usually, many bars in Tulsa, of one sort or another, have a porch off outside, where couples of any persuasion can go out and take things a bit farther, they being consenting adults.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

By Lisas dictionary, id be a homophobic. I have a dislike, and am prejudiced to gay people. That said, I have no power to condem them to anything. Id bet theres only been one person in all of life that wasn't prejudiced, and even He didn't like religion or those who ran it.
Even the pres and ole pistol packin Moore running for office said that times in the US were the best before 1860


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Mirriam-Webster definition:

"Homophobe: A person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly. "

Also, the term "Phobe" means fear.

That is very different from people saying that they would rather gays did not hold hands in public. Statements like that reflect lack of comfort, not fear.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Bill, you were born 50 years too late, is all. In reference to post #160, like it or not, what you don't like to see is a sign of the times, so to speak. There's lots of things out there that don't appeal to many of us, some of it in an eyeball-pain-fork kind of way. (For me that includes dudes walking around with their pants down almost to their ankles with underwear and butt-cracks hanging out.) Because we do live in a free country, you may just need to look the other way.


.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> So you think the people who brutally murdered Matthew Shepherd were actually afraid of him?


Yes. Afraid of what he might do.

And it is a short path between fear and hate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmboyBill said:


> IF I go into a gay bar, then ive givin up my right to condim anyone in there, as they are doing what they do in a place *pubically* known as a gay bar.


I couldn't care less about their "pubics", but you should always wear your "condim".


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

LOL lol
I don't hate gay people. I don't HATE anybody but Neo Nasties, and KKK. Guess I hate haters only, regardless what color or nationality, or forum is.
There are things I hate to see, But I don't hate the people doing them. As said, Its a sign of the times. IF Ida stayed in St Joe, id likely not hardly see it. But, when/where you go, you gotta go with the flow, best ya can.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> And it’s a short path between calling people vile names on a public forum (and being welcomed to voice their prejudice openly by moderators) to hate.
> 
> People like this weren’t *“born too late”.* There will always be people who can’t reason things out so just hate what is different and what they can’t understand. Or hate what they worry they actually are.


For the record, and for what it is worth, the "born too late" phrase was directed at post #160. I have not read all the pages of this thread, only a few random posts to get the gist of it. I was not aware of name-calling towards any group of people when I posted. Name calling is wrong, no matter who/what it is directed against.


.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

??? That's some fast clean-up work ahead on aisle 8 and elsewhere (there were posts that I responded to that are no longer there). It's just as well, 'cause they were kinda nasty.

Thanks to whoever mopped it up.


.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Folks, it is almost midnight and I am going to bed.

I have decided to close the thread for the night, as I am not certain what time Shrek will be checking the site tonight.

Good night!


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

CajunSunshine said:


> ??? That's some fast clean-up work ahead on aisle 8 and elsewhere (there were posts that I responded to that are no longer there). It's just as well, 'cause they were kinda nasty.
> 
> Thanks to whoever mopped it up.
> 
> ...


Since we were initiallu moderating this thread in thread up mode as most discussion tangents have stayed within site limits, rather than initially taking the whole thread down , we were instead only putting replies one of us may consider potentially crossing site limits until we can discuss and reach the most unbiased moderation possible.

The only reason we locked the thread at this time is due to the number of replies in review and how large the thread had grown and we didn't want the thread to disappear into our moderation queue as we reviewed it

I know this Xenforo platform does not leave publically visible deletion reason markers behind showing that threads or replies have been moved to our moderator queue as the previous platform did, however Terri and I still see all threads or replies in review and perform our normal team moderation process and strive to keep our participants apprised of our moderations.

As we discuss and reach moderator agreement , if the poster being moderated appears to need a private contact regarding their activity, we contact them as soon as possible. After we complete our moderation we will also unlock the thread.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CajunSunshine said:


> What I don't understand, is why they couldn't have bought a very nice traditional wedding cake, bring it to the venue and then stick a couple of plastic dudes on top to make it suitable for their occasion? Maybe they just wanted to memorialize their special day in a more newsworthy manner?
> 
> .


I'm not sure that the original cake in question was intended to have gender identifying toppers and I haven't seen anywhere it's been mentioned. Very few wedding cakes have the bride & groom toppers and while most decorators will still make them, I haven't seen one in many years. 

Most of the wedding cakes I've seen in the last decade or so, look more like these and if I was expecting to order something like them, a sheet cake from the mall or grocery store wouldn't be a reasonable substitute: 

http://www.whippt.ca/wedding-cakes


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

I have completed my review of the replies moved to our moderation queue and as most threads with discussion tangents after approximately 120 replies, some replies degraded to mid level personal attack rather than site acceptable topic discussion and debate and janitorial clean up moderation seems adequate at this time to allow the discussion to continue among the members on this board.

I will present my opinion to Terri that we dispose of the replies that were removed from public view and suggest that the lock on this thread be lifted.

I ask all of our board participants, especially those who had replies moved into moderation to please keep the discussion civil and within our content boundaries when the lock is lifted on this thread. Please don't call members names or belittle them for their personal opinion they chose to share.

I will also remind our participants that this moderation review disclosure reply will also serve as a "thread up moderation completed to this point" marker and any poster who had a reply janitorial removed above will face the possibility of infraction points that can affect their site access if they choose to further personally attack /crudely respond in excess of site limits to other posters.

The lock on this thread should be removed later today by one of us as Terri and I close out our mod review discussion.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

This thread is now open and ready for business!

Please remember that homesteadingtoday expects its posters to be to be "neighborly"!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

CajunSunshine said:


> ??? That's some fast clean-up work ahead on aisle 8 and elsewhere (there were posts that I responded to that are no longer there). It's just as well, 'cause they were kinda nasty.
> 
> Thanks to whoever mopped it up.
> 
> ...


You’re more than welcome. I deleted my own posts. Not like my disgust is going to change people.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Folks, the contents of the posts we deleted are not to be re-posted, not even for the purpose of arguing about who was or was not out of line. For this reason I deleted the last 2 posts on this thread


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Terri said:


> Folks, the contents of the posts we deleted are not to be re-posted, not even for the purpose of arguing about who was or was not out of line. For this reason I deleted the last 2 posts on this thread


Huh, we weren't discussing the posts you (HT) deleted ?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

You allow a divisive thread in Singletree when it belongs in another forum and when it delivers you get all upset, hilarious.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

And they wonder why so many left here?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Twp.Tom said:


> And they wonder why so many left here?


Too many wanna be moderators?


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

The meme below is the one I should have posted. (It does not include the inflammatory political hashtag at the end of the meme on post 148.)

I apologize to any Democrats that I have offended; it was NOT intentional, as I am politically neutral, with no ill feelings towards any party. I was lazy in not searching harder for something that clearly conveyed my sentiments without that danged hashtag at the bottom of the meme. To all democrats here, I am sincerely sorry. Those who know me, know that political bashing is NOT my thing.

Here is a clean version:


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

This used to be the best sub forum at HT


Bearfootfarm said:


> Too many wanna be moderators?



Remember not long ago when you said you never posted in Singletree, now it seems a daily occurrence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Remember not long ago when you said you *never* posted in Singletree, now it seems a daily occurrence.


I don't believe I ever said "never" and that changes nothing about what I said above.

When something shows up in the "recent threads" at the bottom of the page, it doesn't say which forum it's in.

None of that has to do with others trying to dictate what is posted where and by whom.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 10:57 PM following mod review with Terri


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 10:59 PM following mod review with Terri


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:01 PM following mod review with Terri


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:03 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:05 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:05 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:08 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:09 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:10 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:12 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

As we have mentioned before, those in the single lifestyle demographic often find current social /political topics affecting their single lifestyle and we allow them to discuss it within the singles demographic group and those offering opinion that might be of help in answering their questions.

This thread is one that drifted in multiple directions of questions being asked and also has drawn a few HT members who seldom post outside of PRDC board since the main demographic on that board appears to have tired of debating among themselves on PRDC as their positions there have lost debate value due to factors of ineffectiveness from repetition, preaching to the choir and the PRDC audience not finding the same old material of interest. So they migrated here.

While we have no issue with participants of other boards migrating here to offer their opinion, we ask of them the same we ask of our Singletree demographic.

Please discuss and debate civilly and do not name call or flippantly curse or bait other members as you discuss the topic.

Most of all , please stay within HT content limits as if you don't, Terri and I will be forced to review, edit or delete replies and since we have initially given warning to the Singletree board participants posting on this thread and its various tangents, if a reply exceeds site limit policy , the poster will qualify for infraction points.

So please discuss civil and constructively , not disruptively.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[Reply deleted as it was part of a hiss n spit grade argument that exceeded HT civility limit. ]*

*Content deleted by Shrek 12/13/17 11:14 PM CST following mod review with Terri


----------

