Court: Christian printer doesn't have to print gay pride shirts

The pizza parlor incident was rediculous, threats are where the line should be drawn. But protests and calls for boycotts are completely acceptable - or do you think people no longer have that right.

And since all gay people are represented by the gay activists I assume you are represented here:

 

yes.... believe it or not... I support TRUE equality.... not just "rules for you and different rules for me"


if you're going to allow pro-ssm stores to deny Christians, then you can't be upset when Pro-traditional marraige supporters deny gays....

or.....


if you demand pro-traditional marraige supporters to serve SSM events.... then also be prepared to have gays be forced to serve traditional marriage events.



you can't have it both ways.


Personally, I support letting businesses decide.... even if that means I, as a Christian, have to find another baker to bake my traditional marraige cake.

- - - Updated - - -

We may not see eye to eye on much of anything, including your fetish for young gay pornstars that play the role of jailbait in gay porns..... but one thing I can say about you positive is, you are consistent in this portion of the debate.

 

Your comparison of the Westboro Baptist Church is not relevant as numerous Christian groups have openly renounced them. If you can show us even one example of gays openly renouncing other gays you might have a point...

 

If it was against their personal beliefs yes, I would.

I believe every business should have the right to choose who to do business with.

Our local pizza place still has a sign up that says " We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time."

 

There are homosexuals that believe business should have the right to refuse them and that this movement today is ridiculous.

So let's not lump the entire group together a lot are honest every day Americans who wouldn't mind if a business refused to serve them because of their personal beliefs.

They should be the figure head of the homosexual society, they would truly be for equality.

 

Who are they? Its the been a problem with that community since the whole AIDS thing back in the 80's. They stand together, or so it seems and have no dissent among themselves, and any who voice dissent to their opinions are branded homophobes, bigots, or whatnot. If they refuse to publicly police themselves they should be lumped together, no other groups get away with such behavior if they don't wish to be lumped together.

 

Well here is one so I guess you cannot say that any longer. Or do you require more? 50, 100. What number is acceptable

 

Absolutely. I don't think that, say, a Muslim should have to make a WWJD t-shirt. Or an agnostic, or anyone else for that matter.

 

Unfortunately we both know it doesn't work that way. What is required is a public display, not an anonymous internet display of dissent...

 

So what you want is a massive protest of gay people who are against the actions of other gay people? You're being ridiculous here. You're painting the LGBT community with a very wide brush, and it only serves to make you look unintelligent.

 

It would be a start that there was any public dissent, no need for massive. As far as I'm concerned, and others like me, the gay community has quite a bit to answer for if they wish to ever be taken seriously as anything other than a bunch of whiners and fearmongers...

 

Why on earth would people have to answer for the actions of other people who happen to have the same orientation? That's ridiculous. I see from you have a Minnesota flag on your profile. Does that mean you have to apologize for the actions of Minnesotans?

Again, you're painting in broad strokes. Way too broad.

 

"Others like you", you mean individuals that are judging a whole group of people based on the actions of a few. And newsflash, we do not really care what you see us as, but we will all demand equality under the law - which includes the ability to sign civil contracts. Your views are irrelevant.

 

I don't have a problem with boycotts.

But the gay activists are not boycotting. A boycott is a voluntary personal decision to withhold services or patronage, a person can boycott or not as it suits their attitude.

The gay activists are not boycotting, they are blockading. They intimidate everyone associated with the person under attack in an attempt to isolate the victim, the gays threaten and harass the victims coworkers, his family and friends, his employer. They work to get the victim fired from his job. If the victim owns or runs a business, then the gays harass and threaten the employees, customers and suppliers. If people speak out in support of the victim or question the excess harassment, then they are harassed and threatened. Gays go after prominent people to force them to publicly oppose the victim.

The gay activists are not engaged in a public discourse. There is nothing voluntary about the gay "boycott". Its nothing more than a rabid mob which will turn on anyone that doesn't obey the mob rule.

 

There is a virtually unrecognized plague of disabled people who make careers out of traveling around the country visiting hotels, restaurants, and shops, exploiting the poorly written and often contradictory building codes that are part of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I think there will be an upstart of the same type of people crusading around the country trying to secure produces and services in the name of homosexuality, or against it, and then suing because the law there is even more inconsistent.

 

see, you don't have to print words against your beliefs, you just have to sell the shirt, same it true with the cake, you have to sell the cake, just don't have to put words on it you disagree with

course not printing these probably did not help his business any.... but hey, it's his business

.

 

I'm sure it will happen, if people can abuse the system they will find a way.
The easiest solution is to end all discriminatory protections and let the facilities announce (publicly visible) who they do not serve.

 

making a Christian shirt company print a rainbow flag shirt for a gay pride parade is no different than making a black owned shirt shop print the rebel flag for a KKK meeting.


I also don't think anyone should be forced to print a "God hates f--gs" shirt for Westburo Baptist Church protests, either.

 

It's been illegal for businesses to discriminate on grounds of religion for decades though. If you're so strongly in favour of letting businesses decide, why did you only start speaking out against the law when sexual orientation was being included?

 

you're right, it has been..... but I haven't spoken out before because Christians weren't being denied services because the business doesn't agree with their philosophy like they are now and I'm pointing out the hypocracy.


Listen, if you are upset that a Christian doesn't have to print a rainbow flag on a gay pride shirt... you can't be upset if Westburo baptist church comes in and expects you to print their shirts. I DON'T expect a printshop to be forced to serve WBC, despite it being under the umbrella of "religion"

on the same token, I can't be upset if I am denied service for a church event that promotes traditional marraige if I side with not forcing a shirt maker to make a gay pride shirt..... I just have to find another cake maker.

 

I seen LGBTQQ used in several posts on this site. What the heck does the QQ stand for?

 

"queer and questioning"

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LGBTQQ


but only THEY can use the word queer.... it's offensive if non-queers do. it's like the NAACP.... but don't you dare call them colored people

 

Should they be forced to print t-shirts for pedophile pride? Nazi pride? KKK pride?

 

Thanks. This must be an age thing. I can remember when queer made weird and (*)(*)(*) was a cigarette. Also when Colored was replaced by Negro which MLK used extensively to Black to I suppose African-American today or I may have that reversed.

I can also remember when we were taught there was no hyphenated Americans. Regardless of race, color, creed, where one came from we were all Americans. Times and words change.

 

if the SCOTUS deems that being homosexual is akin to race then yes, all behaviors will then fall under protected class status.

You can't give protection for a specific sexual activity and not all other activities