1.)They have been threatened with financial penalty and hardship through legal channels if they do not comply... You can call that what you want, but it doesn't change what it is.
2.)Where did you come up with that? That does not apply in any way to what I said.
3.) If a gay person orders a wedding cake and does not specify it's for a gay wedding, then if the baker refuses, that in my view is discrimination, not a religious objection.
4.)I just don't see that as the same.
5.) Denying people an apartment because you disagree with their lifestyle or because you object to how they might conduct themselves behind closed doors, isn't a justification to refuse to rent to them.
6.) I realize that there are some grey areas with this, but I just try and judge this situation considering both sides and doing what is right.
7.)Your question brings to mind a similar debate I've seen discussed in the past, that is far tougher than this one... It's whether the manager of a family oriented apartment complex, where children of all ages live and are given a resonably secure environment to engage in outdoor activities, is within his rights to refuse to rent to a preditor who was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation several years ago and served his time.
8.)Geez... lighten up... My point was, that if someone is so arrogant that they get in peoples faces with their lifestyle, which they know will be seen as objectionable and offensive to a significant percentage of our society, and basically challenge them to look sideways, then they deserve to be tossed to the curb.
9.)What I'm saying here is, tolerance is a 2 way street. if you show respect for people and treat them the way you would want to be treated, you'll find that tolerance will win the day, and quite often even over valid religious objections.
1.)I agree you can call it what you want but it wont change the fact of what it is, they were NOT threatened LMAO
laws are laws they arent threats
by that logic we are threatened every day then
2.) because its the same thing. it applies 100%
3.) its discrimination no matter what and its discrimination against a gay person as already proven.
4.) and thats the problem.. thats the problem with the law and its a huge problem with the failed logic behind your judgments of the situation
5.) yes i get it. Some how its logical to NOT give a "cake" to people for a wedding based on religion and that seems justified because people may feel its a sin. But they should have to give the gay couple an apartment to live in together even if they think its a sin.
very consistent in logic there (sarcasm)
6.) what is right is flowing the same rules as everybody, not breaking the law no infringing on peoples rights and not illegally discriminating
7.) no, those are not the same at all, and there are many places where laws already speak on this issue and sex offenders have rules themselves they must go by. That has nothing to do with a gay couple holy cow lol
rapist =/= gay couple
8.) am as light as can be and having a party is nothing like the point you are now trying to make "getting in to faces" whatever that means
9.) tolerance IS a two way street . . and the RESPECT part has to be equal.
to often the people crying and whining over equal rights, civil rights and antidiscrimination laws are the ones that want no part of equality. they want thier OPPRESSIVE views respected while the other side just wants to have the same rights.
for example its not respectful to illegally discriminate and violate peoples rights nor is that tolerance.