I asked all those questions, & only one Gay person had the guts to honestly answer me!
|
I'm not gay. And I either missed the original debate or was banned from it, but here goes answers: "How would you like to force a divorcee to cater their ex spouse's wedding?" - The divorcee has a legitimate concern that they either will not get paid or that the client will claim service wasn't up to par no matter what they provide. The divorcee can legitimately decline based on objective business rationale. "How would you like to force a Peta business owner to cater a fur trapper's convention?" - Unless that caterer is vegetarian their catering business already conflicts with claiming to be Peta. And if they ARE vegetarian then what a great way to stand up for vegetarianism - by catering to a trappers convention. You don't really think these things through before you post them, do you? "How would you like to force African American family owned businesses to cater KKK conventions?" - The African American has a legitimate business concern that they won't get paid, or will get assaulted. They can decline based on that. "How would you like to force Prolife family owned businesses to cater pro abortion conventions!" - They should have to. Catering is a business and this is a business arrangement. "How would you like to force a Jewish owned family business to cater a nazi convention?" - They have legitimate business concern that they would not get paid and would get assaulted. They can decline for those reasons. "How would you like to force a Feminist owned business to cater a convention for Male Cheauvanists?" - The business has legitimate reason to believe they may not get paid and may get harrassed or assaulted. They can decline for those reasons. But interestingly enough it may serve their interests to go do it. Because then all those chauvinists would have to put up with a bunch of women crashing their party - and not for the sake of sex. Basically, FromWithin, you came up with a half dozen scenarios all around catering (which means it's really just one scenario), and they're all pretty easy to answer the same way. 2
points
"He understands that the battle boils down to activists trying to rewrite our Christin faith to exclude passages saying Homosexuality is a sin." no problem, believe its a sin... but dont prevent homosexuals from marrying, oh you dont want to? well than it becomes a question of who's side is science on... and most scientists believe that being gay is frankly not even a choice... my point is if you want to believe we should kill every baby on the planet for example... you have a right to that opinion but not to anything beyond that. He was a Gay person who agreed with me on how these activists should not be trying to force privately owned businesses to cater things that go against their faith or conscience. One person answered his question and agreed with him. Everyone else disagreed with him so it means they didnt answer the question. God I'd love to smash that guys head into the keyboard while shouting "wakey wakey!!!!". Just my vicious fantasy? Shame... 2
points
1
point
The fact that out-of-the-closet homosexual NathanAllen feels the need for approval from a homophobe like FromWithin is just plain worrying. The fact that FromWithin opens his arms to the guy he thinks is disgusting and mentally ill for being gay, is even more worrying. The former is worrying because Nathan clearly has settled into a crowd that will never truly like him for who he is. The latter is worrying because FromWithin is so desperate for one friend in this entire site that he will ignore all his beliefs to show off this friend like a trophy. "Let he who is without sin ...." well, you know. Can you, FW, say you are without sin ... NOPE! Take care of your own problems, you are not qualified to judge .... unless you are as "pure" as Now-a-Saint. ;-) You would have less worries if you didn't worry about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms. Doing that is kind'a perverted. |
