Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

You question had no relevance and I refuse to let you use any answer to divert attention away from the subject I was discussing.
You act like we've never seen you use this tactic before.

You've basically conceded the argument that this is about discrimination. That's a win in my eyes, IMO. Bakers should be able to turn down work that they do not want. It shouldn't be anything more than, "you'd be best going to another bakery."

[Giancarlo]

Ok. What about the person demanding a cake with a swatstika from a Jewish baker? Is that loving behavior?



There is a fundamental conflict between 'freedom of association' and between laws that restrict and regulate whom a business can do business with. Right now we have the hodgepodge where I, as a tutor am free to accept whatever clients I want, for whatever reasons, and a business like a baker cannot.

The market solution is simple - and Dr. King hit on this with the bus boycott. When black people were no longer riding the bus, the bus company had no choice but to change their policies. Why? Because they had lost so much business that they would have gone broke without it.

This is why Jim Crow had the regulatory defense in the southern states. Nowadays, all it would take is word of mouth to spread out that a business was operating on this fashion, and they would likely close because people would refuse to go there. I have no issue with that, and I believe that the market can and will self-regulate and that businesses that discriminate in this fashion will close.

The benefit of this policy, is that it actually protects diversity. If the Chinese restaurant wants to have Chinese people serving, they can have that - as that is their brand and they wish to consolidate their image. Whereas your policy would conclude that was 'discrimination'. The same with Catholic and Christian businesses. They should be able to hire Catholics only to run their business if that is their desire, and be successful by catering to Catholics in general. We have certain demands that are not well met by other stores, and so, a Catholic business is successful by allowing us to do one stop shopping.

I have zero qualms with 'gay' businesses that do the same thing. I think it's important that everyone has a space that they feel they are comfortable. What that doesn't mean is going out of your way to destroy those places for other people.

You are stupidly ignorant and you have no understanding of the constitution. I am sorry, but your long debunked argument carries no weight. It is an exact copy of segregation.

Your argument is stupid! Most businesses in that time period did not fold. They had to be forced by the civils right act, which is a law. Please take your historical revisionism out of here.

No. Christian businesses cannot discriminate and yes they will be held accountable, whether you like it or not. This comfort argument is pure bull****

Protects diversity... Utter ****ing horse****. That is the most stinky argument I have heard from you in a long time. Your argument has nothing to do with protecting diversity.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what privileges? You are a total ass. This isn't about privileges, you selfish stupid man. This is about equality. Your argument is an exact copy of what segregationists used.

The privilege to walk into a Christian store, be a total jackass to the owner and to demand that he cater your wedding. When I grew up there were always signs that the business had the right to refuse services to anyone. Call it the 'jackass' amendment. They don't like your face, you don't do business with them.

This case has lost the lobby a ton of sympathy. And it will consolidate opposition to protect Christian businesses.

[Giancarlo]

By the way, you just advocated violating employment laws too. Bravo you moron... You just showed how many of a nasty bigot you are.

[Giancarlo]

The right to walk into a Christian store, be a total jackass to the owner and to demand that he cater your wedding. When I grew up there were always signs that the business had the right to refuse services to anyone. Call it the 'jackass' amendment. They don't like your face, you don't do business with them.

Nobody was being a total jackass. you are just making this up because you are a stupid moron with no argument. I really wish someone would sue you for libel.

Businesses are expected to follow the law. And if they discriminate they will be held accountable.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are stupidly ignorant and you have no understanding of the constitution. I am sorry, but your long debunked argument carries no weight. It is an exact copy of segregation.

And the reason the bus company folded after the boycott is because they were losing money. The boycott worked. The reason that Jim Crow came into place is not because of the market, but because of the states in the south had put that regulation on the books. Once that was gone, the businesses would have been free to operate on market principles.

Your argument is stupid! Most businesses in that time period did not fold.

If the bus boycott were ineffective, why did MLK cite it as one of his greatest successes?

They had to be forced by the civils right act, which is a law. Please take your historical revisionism out of here.

No historical revisionism at all. Discrimination on the busses ended when the bus boycott successfully forced the bus company to change their policies. King realized that black people had a say into where their dollars go.

No. Christian businesses cannot discriminate and yes they will be held accountable, whether you like it or not. This comfort argument is pure bull****.

We're not going to capitulate on this. You'll have to shut us down one by one. And then, we'll just operate anyways. Good luck with that. You have a long and fruitless crusade to rid the world of Christian businesses.

[Ben Kenobi]

By the way, you just advocated violating employment laws too. Bravo you moron... You just showed how many of a nasty bigot you are

What employment laws? Businesses should be permitted to hire whomever they want for whatever position. If they believe that a certain person is more qualified, they should not be prevented from hiring that person because of bad laws that constrain the operation of their business.

[Dauphin]

If that's true then there's no case for discrimination whatsoever.

Read the order, and you'll see why that view is not true.....but I know you won't read it.

[Dauphin]

In simple terms for simple minds. Just because you weren't a bigot yesterday, doesn't mean you can't be bigot tomorrow.

[Giancarlo]

And the reason the bus company folded after the boycott is because they were losing money. The boycott worked. The reason that Jim Crow came into place is not because of the market, but because of the states in the south had put that regulation on the books. Once that was gone, the businesses would have been free to operate on market principles.



If the bus boycott were ineffective, why did MLK cite it as one of his greatest successes?



No historical revisionism at all. Discrimination on the busses ended when the bus boycott successfully forced the bus company to change their policies. King realized that black people had a say into where their dollars go.

All you can do is talk about buses. There were many other businesses that didn't fold until the law was signed into force and MLK wanted the law changed

Market principles utter bull****. This has everything to do with the law.

You don't know a damn thing about history and your blatant disrespect for the civil rights movement is well noted. They marched on Washington for a change in the law.

But then again you are the racist who (paraphrased) said people should fear all black men because they steal.

[Giancarlo]

What employment laws? Businesses should be permitted to hire whomever they want for whatever position. If they believe that a certain person is more qualified, they should not be prevented from hiring that person because of bad laws that constrain the operation of their business.

No they aren't. If they are violating employment laws, they will face legal sanctions. You don't give two ****s about qualifications. You just said people should get preference for religious beliefs (like Christian businesses only hiring Christians).

What employment laws? You think I give a sh*t about your conservative libertarian bull**** fantasies?

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the order, and you'll see why that view is not true.....but I know you won't read it.

If they were a repeat customer then they were actually served by the business despite the fact that they are gay. Clearly their sexual orientation wasn't the issue. What was the issue is that they were demanding the business to cater their homosexual wedding.

[Ben Kenobi]

There were many other businesses that didn't fold until the law was signed into force and MLK wanted the law changed

True, but again, had market principles been allowed to work, I would argue that the change would have happened anyways. If some businesses remained open, that's an argument that they were actually meeting a market demand. Futhermore, that demand would remain even after the law was changed, they would have just changed their business model to be a private club - which is in fact what we did see.

Market principles utter bull****. This has everything to do with the law.

Laws contrary to market principles can only be sustained by those same market principles. If you don't have police in the hood, you're not going to have discrimination complaints.

You don't know a damn thing about history and your blatant disrespect for the civil rights movement is well noted. They marched on Washington for a change in the law.

True. I don't see how it changes my point that the bus boycott was successful.

But then again you are the racist who (paraphrased) said people should fear all black men because they steal.

I think that victims are affected by their experiences. Someone who has been raped will be affected in their future relationships with men.

[Dauphin]

What's up with this swastika at a Jewish bakery nonsense. Last I checked Swastikas were not a religion, race or sexual preference or other specifically legislated protected status. So you could reject a request for a swasitka cake with no fear of breaking the law.

[Dauphin]

If they were a repeat customer then they were actually served by the business despite the fact that they are gay. Clearly their sexual orientation wasn't the issue. What was the issue is that they were demanding the business to cater their homosexual wedding.

Again, rebutted in the order. Please learn to read before you spout drivel.