Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 12:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: In my hypothetical, if they were gay and wanted a birthday cake they wouldn't object.  Therefore, they are discriminating against the wedding.  

But I asked "what if they did?" If they simply argue that they are against the birthday not the person, as you are suggesting they are doing with the wedding cake, would they be allowed to not make the cake?

Quote:Great.  Should be easy to highlight an example of when a 18th century private business was forced to serve someone.  

Laws evolve. We didn't have anti discrimination laws until well into the 20th century. The foundation of those laws come from nearly two centuries of the federal government regulating business. If you're interested in an early case that expanded upon the interstate commerce clause, check out Gibbons v Ogden.

Quote:Oh yeah, that's it.  Wouldn't be that the gay couple had an agenda and specifically targeted a faith-based baker, right?    

What was that you said earlier to Matt about just declaring things and putting emojis at the end of it? 85% of the country identifies with a religion. 

Quote:Who is being victimized? 

The person being illegally discriminated against?

Quote: the Christian baker that was sued and lost and in the future has to make things that they religiously and morally object to?

How does one morally object to gay weddings?

Quote:  And of course, all of this was done in the name of "tolerance", which is progressive speak for "our way or the highway".

"Hey, you guys have to stop discriminating. The law says you have to do business with everyone."

Sounds pretty reasonable. 

Quote:I was speaking in general, but if the shoe fits, wear that shit.  

Then would you care to challenge what I said?