[talaniman]

We refuse service to people occasionally, what's the big deal?

Its okay to change the law to make discrimination okay? Gotcha.

Just think of how much food $385,000 would buy, but instead it went to studying duck genitalia.

Less and less as the price goes up.

[speechlesstx]

Its okay to change the law to make discrimination okay? Gotcha.

As if the left doesn't discriminate. Your side is the worst, you think those 'true believers' have no rights at all.

Less and less as the price goes up.

It goes to your "disgusting display of governance" line. Kind of like Zerocare, you're fine with disgusting displays of governance, in fact it's the only way Dems know how to govern.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

you think those 'true believers' have no rights at all.

Why don't you LIST the rights the true believers SHOULD have?

(1) They can HIRE anybody they like.

(2) They can REFUSE service to ANYBODY.

(3) They can FIRE anybody they like.

(4) They can make them go to church.

(5) They can MAKE them have a baby if they get pregnant.

(6) They can put up religious displays in the PUBLIC square.

(7) They can teach Intelligent Design right along side evolution.

(8) They can torture people of different religions..

(9) Even though they operate at the pleasure of the STATE, they believe they can REFUSE to sell certain products.

(10) Did I leave anything off the list?

Excon

[speechlesstx]

I like the first three. Your problem is you lefties pretend you don't discriminate but you do. In fact I recall a survey recently of academics who admitted they would discriminate against conservatives.

The fact is people do hire who they want to hire, and fire who they want to fire and do refuse service to whomever they choose for whatever reason. If I walked into a gay bar wearing a non-offensive t-shirt supporting traditional marriage how do you think I'd be treated?

Number 5, see the 'butchers' thread.

Number 6, the constitution never banned religion from the public square.

Number 7, nothing wrong with presenting competing theories instead of preaching evolution as gospel truth.

Number 4 & 9, I won't force you to go to church so don't force me to sell the morning after pill. Deal?

Number 8, I don't know where you came up with that.

Your turn, what rights do you think believers should have?

[tomder55]

Businesses operate at the pleasure of the state.. love that one .
This all came about because a florist who had sold to gays and even employed gays made a line in the sand and refused to sell arrangements for a gay marriage. That isn't refusing to sell to gays ;it's refusing to participate in any way in this ceremony that she has religious objections to.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Your turn, what rights do you think believers should have?

The same rights I have.

You DO understand that we can't have one set of laws for true believers, and another set for the rest of us. If we adopted YOUR ideas, that would be a return to the 19th Century. As much as you liked it back then, it ain't going to happen..

Excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

businesses operate at the pleasure of the state.. love that one .

That sounds eerily similar to something I would say. But, I WOULDN'T have said THAT. What I WOULD have said, and have, is that a business like a PHARMACY is licensed, and that licensing authority CAN and SHOULD require they the licensee fulfill certain requirements that the STATE sees as necessary EVEN if the licensee doesn't.

The LICENSING authority has an obligation to the CITIZENRY and NOT the religious beliefs of its licensee's. That would ALSO include deciding that a drug store is NOT a church.

The florist, of course, isn't bound by a license.. They're only bound by law - and that's enough.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

The same rights I have.

You DO understand that we can't have one set of laws for true believers, and another set for the rest of us. If we adopted YOUR ideas, that would be a return to the 19th Century. As much as you liked it back then, it ain't gonna happen..

excon

Dude, I wasn't around in the 19th century and you really can drop the stone age references about conservatives, we aren't the ones that think everyone should live in a mud hut so as not to harm mother earth.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

That sounds eerily similar to something I would say. But, I WOULDN'T have said THAT. What I WOULD have said, and have, is that a business like a PHARMACY is licensed, and that licensing authority CAN and SHOULD require they the licensee fulfill certain requirements that the STATE sees as necessary EVEN if the licensee doesn't.

The LICENSING authority has an obligation to the CITIZENRY and NOT the religious beliefs of its licensee's. That would ALSO include deciding that a drug store is NOT a church.

The florist, of course, isn't bound by a license.. They're only bound by law - and that's enough.

excon

The state gives me permission to drive a car (a license) but it doesn't tell me where to drive.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Dude, I wasn't around in the 19th century

You didn't have to be alive back then to know it was BEFORE women could vote. It was BEFORE black people could vote. It was BEFORE a time when black people could eat where they chose. It was BEFORE a time when black people could LIVE where they wanted... There's more, of course... Much more.

And THAT'S the time you want us to go back to. You may NOT understand that, but the rest of us do...

Excon

[talaniman]

The state gives me permission to drive a car (a license) but it doesn't tell me where to drive.

It tells you where you can drive and how fast, and if you don't believe me try going down the highway on the wrong side, or a one way street, or a trucker in the far left lane. Plenty of rules of good behavior for our safety.

Only the right wants to make discrimination a right. For religious reasons no less. I love it when you guys holler about rights and try to take the rights of others in the same breath.

We discriminate?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The state gives me permission to drive a car (a license) but it doesn't tell me where to drive.

WHERE you drive ISN'T in the states interest.. To SEE that every one of its citizens have equal access to the things they NEED, IS.

I don't know WHY you can't discern these distinctions. This isn't hard.

Let me ask you this. Let's say this LICENSED pharmacist decides NOT to sell Plan B. So, the state approves a pharmacy license to a fellow right next door, who WILL sell plan B. Do you think pharmacist A would complain to the licensing authority about THAT?? I think he WOULD.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

It tells you where you can drive and how fast, and if you don't believe me try going down the highway on the wrong side, or a one way street, or a trucker in the far left lane. Plenty of rules of good behavior for our safety.

And that's different from a pharmacy how? The only way youguys argument can stick is to require every pharmacy to stock and sell EVERY drug available, but NONE of them do that, you only want to make sure they're FORCED to sell the drugs you think they should sell.

Only the right wants to make discrimination a right. For religious reasons no less. I love it when you guys holler about rights and try to take the rights of others in the same breath.

Only the left, those champions of CHOICE want to FORCE others to have no CHOICE in the matter.

We discriminate?

Are you telling me you don't? I defy you to find ANYONE that doesn't discriminate.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

WHERE you drive ISN'T in the states interest.. To SEE that each and every one of its citizens have equal access to the things they NEED, IS.

Flowers and abortifacients are not necessities. I don't know why you can't discern those distinctions, it isn't that hard.

[NeedKarma]

Flowers and abortifacients are not necessities.

Correct. In both cases if they are not needed then there is no demand for them.

[cdad]

Hello again, Steve:

To SEE that each and every one of its citizens have equal access to the things they NEED, IS.

excon

I have a major problem with this sentence. Im not sure if a mistake was made or not. It is not the governments role to provide equal access. That is far out thought. Did you mean to say opportunity? The difference being that if you aspire to a status then you should be granted that status when you obtain it. If access is a forced issue then there is no need to aspire to a status as one is provided for you.

What are your thoughts on access vs opportunity ?

[excon]

Hello dad:

This has nothing to do opportunity.. It has to do with ACCESS to medicine. If a state is going to license the purveyor of medicine, the state has an OBLIGATION to the citizens of that state to INSURE its licensee's provide that ACCESS...

If they can sell it at the corner bodega, then the subject is moot.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Dude, you're still ignoring the fact that we have religious rights in this country. The first amendment does not go away because the state issues a license to engage in a certain business. You wish it would but it does not.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

You talk about rights... But, IN this thread alone, you've shown that you care NOTHING about black people's rights. You've shown that you care NOTHING about woman's rights. So, your rights argument is losing gravity with me...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You talk about rights... But, IN this thread alone, you've shown that you care NOTHING about black people's rights. You've shown that you care NOTHING about woman's rights. So, your rights argument is losing gravity with me...

excon

I've shown no such thing, you're making assumptions as usual. It's the same thing you did with the butchers thread, you assume incorrectly that because I defend one right, the rights of the child, that I want to control a woman's uterus. Here you assume that because I believe in religious rights that blacks, gays and women have no rights. That's complete and utter nonsense. You can't get there from here. Your argument is just losing, period.