Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
After Further Review / Re: Meow
« Last post by Mr. Shickadance on Today at 06:30:10 AM »
Says the felcher of Steve Bannon

Says the anal jockey of Alex Jones.
2
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by Misterfamous on Today at 06:01:24 AM »
1.  I didn't even catch the "outing" and assumed the customer did that themselves by filling the lawsuit.  I do think a customer is entitled to reasonable privacy.

2.  I don't hide behind the "artist" argument I just don't feel like someone should be forced to perform a service they don't feel comfortable doing based on religious reasons.

I think this is interesting because it's based primarily on gender and the person doing the service being exposed to anatomy that would make them extremely uncomfortable and cause them to "sin" based on their religious beliefs.

So I ask should this person be forced to provide the service or face sanctions and penalties from a government entity?

Maybe the transgender guy/gal really needed the 50 bucks.

That's bullshit. The person was seeking a leg waxing. Men get leg waxings just like woman do. The people performing the service "are exposed" to male genitalia during that process. This is no different.
Ahhh interesting.  So freedom to practice one's Islamic beliefs is trumped by freedom of a transsexual to wax his/her legs. 

I wonder where other groups prioritization lie, such as Hamas, MS-13 and Rachel Dolezal.  Is there a scorecard to consult for such things ?
3
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by dbldwn711 on Today at 02:09:22 AM »


I think this is interesting because it's based primarily on gender and the person doing the service being exposed to anatomy that would make them extremely uncomfortable and cause them to "sin" based on their religious beliefs.



That's bullshit. The person was seeking a leg waxing. Men get leg waxings just like woman do. The people performing the service "are exposed" to male genitalia during that process. This is no different.

4
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by dbldwn711 on Today at 02:01:07 AM »
1.  I didn't even catch the "outing" and assumed the customer did that themselves by filling the lawsuit.  I do think a customer is entitled to reasonable privacy.

2.  I don't hide behind the "artist" argument I just don't feel like someone should be forced to perform a service they don't feel comfortable doing based on religious reasons.

I think this is interesting because it's based primarily on gender and the person doing the service being exposed to anatomy that would make them extremely uncomfortable and cause them to "sin" based on their religious beliefs.

So I ask should this person be forced to provide the service or face sanctions and penalties from a government entity?

You keep missing the point. I will say this AGAIN!

I do NOT believe that ANY person should be FORCED to perform ANY service that is against their religious belief.

However, IF a person CHOOSES to perform a service then they MUST perform that service to EVERYONE and NOT be allowed to discriminate based upon their OWN personal religious beliefs.

That means I would NOT force the baker to bake a speciality wedding cake for a gay couple AS LONG AS he doesn't bake wedding cakes for ANYONE.  (BTW... That's exactly what is happening right now in CO.  That baker is still in business and if you go on his website and look under "speciality wedding cakes" it will say "service not available at this time").

However, if the baker decides to bake speciality wedding cakes for anyone, he must comply with the anti-discrimination laws of the state or federal government despite his religious beliefs.

That is religious freedom! He can CHOOSE to follow his religion, not bake cakes and NOBODY can force him. What he can't do is bake cakes and then be allowed to discriminate.

I SUPPORT his religious freedom. HE chooses what he wants to do.
You SUPPORT his right to discriminate in the name of religion.
6
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by wild-turkey on Today at 01:45:08 AM »
1.  I didn't even catch the "outing" and assumed the customer did that themselves by filling the lawsuit.  I do think a customer is entitled to reasonable privacy.

2.  I don't hide behind the "artist" argument I just don't feel like someone should be forced to perform a service they don't feel comfortable doing based on religious reasons.

I think this is interesting because it's based primarily on gender and the person doing the service being exposed to anatomy that would make them extremely uncomfortable and cause them to "sin" based on their religious beliefs.

So I ask should this person be forced to provide the service or face sanctions and penalties from a government entity?
7
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by dbldwn711 on Today at 01:06:41 AM »
I think the companies biggest problem is they published the name and other personal information which identified the person as being transgender. In other words, they "outed" the person. It sounds like you don't have a problem with that. I do.  I believe a individual gets to choose where, when and under what circumstances they decide to "come out". You apparently don't think so. 

Also, I'm not familiar with the laws of Canada or how they work however, I will say that if this happened here in the US the company would have major problems.

Lastly, I will add that this shows you REALLY don't understand the issues in the CO baker case and are blinded by the religious aspect of the entire argument. Here's why I say that. In the baker case you "hide behind" the fact that it was a "speciality wedding cake". You acquiesced that the gays could have any "under the glass" cake but forcing the poor baker to bake them a "speciality cake" was just too much to bear! 

Applying that same logic here, this was no speciality treatment.  This was an ordinary waxing. In other words, it was an "under the glass cake" yet you apparently STILL have a problem with it. Now, tell me again how your supporting the baker won't be the beginning of a slippery slope to the denial of other services.  Oh wait... next you'll be telling me how the person who was performing the waxing is an "artist".
8
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by wild-turkey on Today at 12:32:35 AM »
Pro-noun neutral a cake.
9
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by wild-turkey on Today at 12:32:04 AM »
It a cake.
10
After Further Review / Re: Hey dbldwn
« Last post by wild-turkey on Today at 12:31:55 AM »
Her a cake.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10