I believe a person should not be forced to endorse/participate in something they do not believe in. Now if something is there and ready to go then it should be purchased...cash and carry.
Well, to name just a couple, the case of the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who declined to make a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, even thought he offered then anything else on sale in his store, and the case of the Washington state florist, Barronelle Stutzman, who declined to decorate a long time gay customers same sex wedding, even though they had already been her customers for the previous decade.
There are no "LGBT rights". That's like claiming a "right to be stupid", or a "right to be sick".
Right means straight up, square, correct, the strong arm, a legal privilege. The common meaning to all those things is strength. You have a right to life, but only if you are strong enough to cling to it. You have a right to the space you occupy, but only if you are strong enough to defend it. You have a right to own property, but only if you can guard it from all attackers. You may obtain the services of a champion to defend your rights, or create a government for that purpose, but of course the champion's loyalty might become a concern, and governments always eventually renege on the contract.
You can not create rights, they are god-given. You can create a legal privilege, and then if you qualify you can exercise the right to claim that privilege. So far no "LGBT rights" have been created as legal privileges. The queers speak as if they already exist, and most people just try to ignore them. When some people have heard the bullsnot enough that they assume "LGBT rights" already exist, then the queers will start forcing participation.
"You have a right to the space you occupy, but only if you are strong enough to defend it." >>> so it's fair game to invade the space occupied by children and disabled people?
Well, I'm not everybody and will probably get flack for this but, I don't think much of this whole matter. First off, LGBT have no more "rights" than anyone else. They aren't any more special than anyone else. And because that be the case, this whole mess has been politicized and basically designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideologies. This has nothing to do with liking or disliking homosexuals but has to do with me or John Smith down the street, giving up our rights to give them special rights. You can't force someone to adopt your way of thinking.
This post was edited by rusureamisure? at April 4, 2018 3:37 PM MDT
Surely they have the same 'rights' as anyone else and that includes the 'right' not to be discriminated on the grounds of religion and/or sexuality, I think that the baker also has the right to refuse service to anyone and could have done so without making a song and dance about it, on the other hand that stupid woman who refused to issue a marriage licence was clearly in breach of her contract as a government employee.
There is a right to enter into contracts, which implies the right to refuse a contract for any reason you choose. The government does not violate that right because a business using a made up name must have a license to establish its legal identity. So the courts do actually have jurisdiction to require a business to deal with people even though they would prefer not to.
Unfortunately, not everybody knows when they are entering into a verbal or written contract as it's so sneaky and that's why we need lawyers and they know the legal jargon we don't, the game is rigged from the start, this is why all the bigwig children go to Eton and learn Latin, the law is written in Latin folks, and the Law rules everything.
There is no excuse in that case because you have to pay for the license.
Another thing that most businessmen don't know is that they are paying for the privilege of collecting taxes. That's why it's called "tax privilege license".
Thriftymaid 