LGBTQ FREEDOM

Freedom for all?
Does that include freedom to live our lives and run our businesses according to our faith?

You can choose not to bake the cake. But that might open you up to lawsuit. Maybe choose another profession or don't bake cakes for weddings. You have options.

Thanks to Trump appointing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh the next religious liberty case that gets to the Supreme Court will set a national precedent that citizens nor the state will be able to use the court system to force other citizens to work for them against their will. So no more of those lawsuits.

Do you know what forcing someone to work against their will is called? SLAVERY

2bqp2p.jpg (click to show)

How is it a false conclusion to consider both "forcing another to bake a cake" and "forcing another to carry a pregnancy to term"?

So, forcing someone to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy and risk death from birth would be slavery too.

A lawsuit should only happen when it's a bad thing. I have nothing against LGBTQ people but you can't infringe upon other's basic rights.

Ya, shop owners and store owners used to choose whom not to sell goods to. And they clamored and hemmed and hawed very loud when Sears started to sell goods mail order. They burned the Sears Catalogs in the streets; made a big show. They claimed that landlords' and store owners' rights were being infringed upon. How dare Sears take away the shop owners right to refuse service to the Negros?

Did you know this looks like an echo from the racist past of America?

So they got violent for not being served? No wonder nobody wanted to!

Um, no. Sears gave black persons the chance to shop with the same experience as whites. White store owners hated it; white store owners felt their rights were being taken away. White store owners wanted to reserve the right to refuse service to Negros.

"White store owners hated it"

No, it isn't a stretch. It is recorded history.
Google this and learn: "sears catalog" burning streets
"Those store owners frequently determined what African Americans could buy by limiting how much credit they would extend."
"While country stores were one of the few places where whites and blacks routinely mingled, store owners fiercely defended the white-supremacist order by making black customers wait until every white customer had been served and forcing them to buy lower-quality goods. "

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/sears-radical-past-how-mail-order-catalogs-subverted-the-racial-hierarchy-of-jim-crow/

Your reply is retarded. Don't trust me, go on the internet and look. And if you are confused about the red herring comment, that is because
Your eye roll picture is a distraction because there is little importance on how many white shop owners limited what black persons could buy and it leads one to a false conclusion by trying to reduce the magnitude of the claim by portraying the problem as smaller, or less bad, than what it was.

Red herring fallacy was what you were referring to.

I don't know history well enough to say it was every one. Also, red herring.

Also the because I say so fallacy.

Good point. If I felt it was within my conscience to have separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for whites and coloreds in my store, then why shouldn't I?

Because it's a religious right! If somebody said "I don't want to serve blacks" because a personal belief isn't being infringed it's not okay. A gay couple doesn't have to go to a single store. That bakery in Colorado was like the only one that didn't serve them.

Your feelings about bathrooms and fountains aren't enshrined in the 1st Amendment

That is an EPIC LEVEL strawman.

No, not Freedom for All, Freedom for All AMERICANS

If you mean Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, he is still being persecuted by Colorado. The Supreme court decision was narrow in that it only ruled in favor of Phillips in that particular case. The ruling did not set a precedent which influences laws throughout the country. Therefore the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is still going after Phillips, they are just "being nice about it" this time. They won't say the same things they said in their previous hearings with Phillips; such as likening his Christian faith to the same motives racists and antisemitists had when they persecuted minorities in the past.

The next time Alliance Defending Freedom gets Phillips case heard before the Supreme Court there will be precedent set concerning religious freedom, thanks to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh!

When it comes to "whoever" denying service to anyone they want: 2bqp2p.jpg (click to show)

I wouldn't brag about Kavanaugh backing my religious views. Still the point is anyone can say it is against their religious convictions to provide a service for someone. Personally I wouldn't want a bigot doing anything for me and would go else where and would tell friends why I won't go there. I don't care if they don't want to make money off someone, it does irk me that they are hypocrites and pick and choose what they will do or not do, even though they are baking cakes for lots of people who don't live by the bible.

I agree :)