I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking about two different situations and making a false equivalency.RickD wrote:Would a Jewish baker who refuses to bake a cake with a swastika on it, be discrimination, that should not be allowed?ed wrote:
Details, details. Refusing to make me a cake for my buddy's gay wedding is still discrimination. I shudder to imagine the epic, screaming hissy-fit that will occur the day an American Christian faces the same treatment.
What about a Muslim cake maker who refuses to bake a cake with an insult towards Muhammad?
Still discrimination that shouldn't be allowed?
Yes, absurd.B. W. wrote:Absurd???
No, they don't.B. W. wrote:As for homosexuals - you do not get it, do you? The links and I gave as well as the point was that sexual predators will exploit the laws to perp and target victims.
Last time I was in a Target dressing room they were coed, meaning that there was a room with a row of stalls that were open to anyone wanting to try something on. One guy was apparently holding a cell phone above the wall, filming the woman next to him. That's a crime, so he was arrested. A different guy at a different store in a different state apparently tried to reach below the wall to film a girl changing. That's also illegal, so he was also arrested. And a third guy at another store in another state was also trying to film women changing, but there were no details mentioned about how he was doing it.
These events had nothing to do with the bathroom laws. Furthermore, the incidents took place in three different states, and one of them was over a year ago. That hardly constitutes a crime wave.
You frequently use 2-3 examples of something that bothers you to argue that it's happening everywhere all the time. Do you not understand that our country has a population of 300,000,000 people living in an area of 3.8 million miles?
What are you babbling about? Yes, I write in paragraphs - typical leftist - but everything else in that sentence you just made up.B. W. wrote:It is not about bathrooms Ed it is about bashing Christianity just as your own paragraphed response above points out to castigate all Christians as bigots, homophobic, dweebs, ignorant stupid, brutish thugs...
Where did you get the idea that they were in women's dressing rooms? That wasn't mentioned in any of the articles. Did you dream it?B. W. wrote:If the laws were not changed under alleged Gay rights then these perps would not be going into women's dressing rooms, lockers, bathrooms in the first place ED...
Have you ever noticed how few stores even have dedicated women's dressing rooms? They're mostly coed, and they often have dividers that you could easily look over or under if you were inclined to do so. My toddler does it all the time. Maybe instead of wasting your energy on ranting about events unrelated to gay rights you should focus on pressuring retail stores to build better changing stalls...
How you can claim to represent either...?B. W. wrote:What part of common sense and common decency do you not understand Ed?
Let's see...B. W. wrote:Who is really abiding according to this statement?
"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. " Isaiah 1:17,18 NKJV
Learn to do good? Well, according to you you do plenty of good, although I imagine that you're really preachy about it. At the same time, you constantly do bad by spewing hate and vitriol about a straw man that you call "the left." That's divisive, frequently dishonest, and generally bad for our society. You're also making stuff up in order to seem oppressed so that you can justify rebuking people you disagree with as oppressors rather than fellow citizens with different viewpoints. I don't recall the fatherless or widows coming up in this discussion, so I assume that they're incidental to your point - you wanted to use the part about oppression, so orphans and widows came along for the ride.
Anyway, I guess someone could be abiding by that statement, but it's not you.