Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[molly bloom]

You're the one that decided to start it up again. The thread largely died as far as my interest in it

I didn't 'start it up again'. I notice you refer to people such as me and MrFun routinely as 'fags' and '******s'. Do you use a similar kind of terminology to refer to African Americans or Jewish Americans or Hispanic Americans ?

If not why not ?

Of course you're safely behind a computer keyboard thousands of miles away, because with me you wouldn't enjoy that option twice without some kind of change in your physical circumstances.

You strike me as the double deficit kind of bigot- gutless and spineless.

[molly bloom]

So you're conceding then that I have a point.

It would be that clearly defined one on the apex of your skull.

[molly bloom]

How does the fact that economically, children do better living in a home with their married mother and father count as bigotry? .

Better than with two gay dads ? Tsk tsk.

[molly bloom]

We've had trials before based on a lack of factual evidence. .

Yes, but you still managed to get the date the Roman Catholic Inquisitions began and ended wrong- despite being a (self and oft-proclaimed) Catholic convert and 'history teacher' at a Catholic school..

[Sava]

Of course you're safely behind a computer keyboard thousands of miles away, because with me you wouldn't enjoy that option twice without some kind of change in your physical circumstances.

You strike me as the double deficit kind of bigot- gutless and spineless.

[DinoDoc]

I didn't 'start it up again'. I notice you refer to people such as me and MrFun routinely as 'fags' and '******s'.

Nope. Just people like MrFun are referred to by words Aeson bars me from saying again. Largely because he's a whinny little crybaby. People such as yourself, I categorize as something far more mundane: boring.

[molly bloom]

Nope. Just people like MrFun are referred to by words Aeson bars me from saying again. Largely because he's a whinny little crybaby. People such as yourself, I categorize as something far more mundane: boring.

Largely because he's a whinny little crybaby.

Such bravery. You're a One Stop Shop of cliches. Unimaginative and unoriginal- seriously, what kind of witless fool are you ?

[DinoDoc]

Such bravery. You're a One Stop Shop of cliches. Unimaginative and unoriginal- seriously, what kind of witless fool are you ?

The kind you can't help but respond to apparently?

[molly bloom]

The kind you can't help but respond to apparently?

I try not to leave doors flapping open- I don't like draughts.

[MrFun]

Nope. Just people like MrFun are referred to by words Aeson bars me from saying again. Largely because he's a whinny little crybaby. People such as yourself, I categorize as something far more mundane: boring.

Are there any individual black people that you refer to as "******s," because you personally dislike them and don't care for their feelings?

I don't understand how you can use demeaning slurs of any kind and then think that you're not an ignorant, backward bigot.

[DinoDoc]

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Princess.

[Ben Kenobi]

c) thanks for trying to prove how absurd your position is, even if you did it in a way that makes absolutely no sense itself

What's absurd about it? If you can't prove that so and so knew that so and so was actually gay, then it's rather hard to prove they were discriminated against. What we do see is that gay folks - after the fact - file the suit, claiming discrimination. This amounts to a violation of the 4th since all we have to go upon is their word. As a business owner myself, this gives me an incentive to only provide services to those that I know cannot (and will not) sue me for hurt feelings.

You seem confused. using a slur isn't the reason it's against the law. In the hypothetical the slur only proves that not serving the people was because of an intent which is specifically against the law.

The 1st draws no such distinction, because you're effectively banning certain words from being expressed. Just because you find certain words hurtful doesn't mean you can ban them from the language altogether.

As for what I want, I wouldn't want to see people driven out of business by government for using a slur.

You've defined discrimination so broadly that this is the practical effect.

I wouldn't mind (and probably would cheer for) seeing someone using a slur at their customers getting their business boycotted and having to close their business though.

That would require the operation of market economics, not regulatory officials. If you sincerely believe that boycotts are the correct solution, then businesses can legally discriminate.

I certainly don't think it says what you claim it says.

You dispute my claim that the first amendment protects free expression - which includes and is not limited to the use of slurs?

I'm glad SCOTUS agrees with me and disagrees with you about those two issues.

Where has SCOTUS ruled that using slurs in public is contrary to the first amendment?

Please learn the meaning of the word "implications".

So, you're admitting then that it says nothing about marriage.

for bringing the topic of marriage into this discussion.

Are you conceding then that the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever?

I had no idea you asked me this. Sorry.

As for the question ... I haven't claimed a Christian baker has anything to do with interstate commerce.

You've claimed that 'a business that refuses to provide services to a black person' is engaging in prohibited discrimination. However, SCOTUS, in the case you cited does not actually rule out discrimination on the part of businesses, and actually limits it citing 'interstate commerce'.

Ergo - a business which provides a service which can be easily acquired in state by another vendor is permitted to decline whatever clients they please.

I don't care about a baker. I care about the law this thread is about and the absurd implications it can have in specific circumstances (also explicitly noted).

So you're stating then that you believe that the Christian baker should be permitted to decline service to gay people?

I'll happily put your answer in my sig if you promise to never post anything stupid or bigoted (as judged by me) again.

Then I see no need to answer a question I've been asked many times before that you already know the answer to.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are there any individual black people that you refer to as "******s,"

Like you do?

[DinoDoc]

Like you do?

It's true. You and Oerdin do have a habit of letting loose with the racial slurs.

[Sava]

Oerdin is worse though. I can't ever recall MrFun singling out men by ethnicity and proclaiming their sluttiness.