JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  DJS

  3M.

  I already knew the Libertarian stance. Mr. Holmes, after his hysterical reactionary comments, simply copied and pasted resposnes from Libertarian/Tea Party sites/commentary.

  As Steve points out, your views are racist and hate filled. This isn't about political views; it is about hate. The courts are stating that discrimination based on persuasion is no different than discrimination based on race. And they are right. Nicely worded 'arguments' mean nothing to me 3M. It is hate. Cloak it as you wish and waste your words on yourself. In the US Constitutional/Economic world in which we live, discriminating against someone, refusing to serve someone, based on race, religion, etc., and persuasion is not within your rights. You may wish it so in the Libertarian nirvana, but you have no rights to do so in a democratic constitution such as exists in the US and most W countries. The courts are finally getting around to addressing an oversight.

  Based on your views you think it acceptable to refuse service to blacks.
• 

  Viviane

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois
• 

  AlphaMan

  Why does this surprise anybody? It's typical JW brain washing. Need to check with the elders first to make sure Jehovah won't destroy her at Armaggedon if she sells invitations to a gay couple. JW's are never going to join the modern world. If the JW's really had their way......gay people would be right after apostates on the stoning list.
• 

  LisaRose

  Mr Mustard, I was not trying to insinuate anything just trying to figure out where you were, I said nothing about Fox news. I missed your earlier comments that you don't hate gay people, so I apologize. Since you are saying this is strictly a property rights issues, we can move to my other questions that you did not answer.

  So are you against the government interfering in cases like this, no matter what the reason? Then you are OK with business owners who refuse to refuse black people, or refuse to serve women?
• 

  steve2

  Goodness me, a few decades ago people bitched because the government dared to step in to legislate against race-based discrimination. We know there would have been people - and still are - who defend(ed) their racial discrimination on religious grounds.

  Fact is there is absolutely no current difference with the governmment legislating against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
• 

  piztjw

  As I read the OP comment I thought that perhaps in the very same line of reasoning that they would support it being forced upon Negroes to provide services advertising or inviting White Supremicists to a Ku Klux Klan rally. Or perhaps in the exact same line of reasoning a Jewish printery must be forced to make available invitations to a Nazi skin head rally.

  Just as surely as some believe that all people must embrace the homosexual agenda, I believe personal choice is the real goal.
• 

  LisaRose

  What is the "homosexual agenda"?
• 

  keyser soze

  As I read the OP comment I thought that perhaps in the very same line of reasoning that they would support it being forced upon Negroes to provide services advertising or inviting White Supremicists to a Ku Klux Klan rally. Or perhaps in the exact same line of reasoning a Jewish printery must be forced to make available invitations to a Nazi skin head rally.

  Apples and oranges. Political ideology is a choice. Sexual orientation and race isn't. Perhaps you should stop thinking of homosexuality as an 'agenda'.
• 

  DJS

  Keyser,

  Nice response to kiz. I'm continually amazed at how many narrow minded dumbasses there are on this site. I understand how and why they were attracted to the Borg; I'm at a loss sometimes to understand how they had enough sense to leave it. You can apparently take the Borgian out of the Borg but with some you can't take the Borg out of the Borgian. It's a shame too many didn't learn anything from the narrow minded, judgemental world of the Borg. These OPs always attract the same mindless responses from the Libertarians, the homophobes, the AOWM (redundant???) and the haters. But showing their stupidity helps the lurkers clarify issues from what some of you tell me, so I suppose letting them get the the keyboard serves a purpose.

  Agenda? Really? Don't these dumbasses understand history? All movements from the oppressed or discriminated against have activists. Saying this one time should be enough for these dumbasses, but apparently they can't read or process data. The gay 'agenda' is similar to the black 'agenda' in the 60s and the women's 'agenda' early in the 20th Century, as has been noted repeatedly. And so on. A gay person has never ever attempted to force anything on me (views or other things). The dumbasses repeating these dumbass phrases as if they have meaning slay me. The dumbasses who attempt to justify or rationalize their hate also slays me.

  There were lots of white haters sitting in front of their TVs in the '60s, watching MLK or others in the Civil Rights' Movent, and saying: "I'm sick and tired of the black agenda being forced down my throat." These dumbasses can't figure that out. Anyway, nice post Keyser.
• 

  LisaRose

  DJS, I get what you are saying, but you do nothing to advance the discussion by name calling, plus you are violating the forum rules. This is a hot button issue for me, but I like to argue the facts, not get into a flame war just because someone believes something different than I do. Nothing is accomplished by attacking people.

  I honestly would like to understand what Piz thinks is the "homosexual agenda". As far as I know they simply want the same basic freedoms as any one else, but until I know what Piz thinks thinks this agenda is, I cannot rationally discuss discuss it.