Is your country's government homophobic?

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Until cleetus wants his confederacy flag cake then they suddenly take requests

One form of mental illness(religion) trumps another (faggotism)

I don't think this makes the government homophobic.

If a state-run bakery refused to make a same-sex wedding cake, that would make for a homophobic government. This bakery was run by someone who, for some reason, doesn't agree with gay marriage. If it's a religious reason, then the state has just protected the baker's right to practise his religion as he feels he needs to. Although (I'd like to think most of us) don't agree with this baker's views, it's not up to the state to decide what people should and shouldn't believe, and so are only protecting his rights that far. I'm sure there are bakeries which aren't run by bellends.

Independent companies should have some freedoms when it comes to their own store policies. If you don't like the business practises of a company, don't pay for their products. Tell other people not to pay for their products and why. The company will either then start to struggle and eventually fail, or have to come out with a public statement and change their policies. You can think of this method as 'voting with your wallet'.

tl;dr: the government wasn't homophobic, they protected a homophobe's right to have shitty beliefs without preventing homosexuals from buying a cake elsewhere

That's an employer, not a service provider. The homosexuals weren't refused a job, they were refused a cake.

States can decide to what extend the freedom of choosing your customers goes. For example you can no longer ban black people from entering your store or refuse them service.

hell no

Attached: canadajustin.jpg (720x603, 91K)

"Narrow" in this context means it doesn't set much precedent. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker because they felt the Colorado government didn't show religious neutrality in their case against him: this ruling doesn't settle the issue of where religious freedom stops and discrimination begins.

The bakery is a workplace. What if an employee is gay? Or someone who wanted to work there but was denied a job was gay?
Can they still say they don’t discriminate?

>gays and transsexuals are getting killed in places around the world due to backward religion and idelogies
>WHY DONT YOU BAKE MY CAKE YOU SANDNIGGER IN A STICK WORSHIPPER HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED

the absolute state of the LGBT movement

I just don't understand why black people would want to give racists their money.

>Until cleetus wants his confederacy flag cake then they suddenly take requests

The difference is leftists think bakers should be forced to make the gay cake, but have the right to refuse the Confederate flag cake, while conservatives generally take a position that the baker should be able to decline making either.

Why is it a "shitty belief"? That man believes what he wants to just like gays do. Who are you to judge it as "shitty"? After all, homosexuality is decidedly revolting.

That’s not the question here. From a legal point of view companies cannot discriminate and by openly admitting you refuse people service based on sexual preference you also admit to be a discriminating employer which is illegal in both US and EU law

Definitely not, and especially after hitting the news with this story there'd be some hefty, well-known evidence of their prejudices.I just thought that might help with seeing how the decision got passed the way it did.

The bakery is a private business and has the right to refuse service to anyone. If the gays want a rainbow cake and the baker refuses, just go to another bakery jeez it's not that hard

Is it strictly about being homophobic though? This is about a wedding cake for gay marriage, not just any old cake for a homosexual. The claim could be (and probably was) that although they wouldn't typically refuse service, they felt they couldn't on the grounds that by providing the cake for the wedding they would be participating in gay marriage which then goes against their beliefs. Simply making a run-of-the-mill cake for a gay man would be absolutely fine for them - when they do this, they're not practising anything which goes against their religion.

The question I'm following is whether or not that makes the government homophobic, and I'm not sure it does.

thank fuck
forcing a private party to do something is literal tyranny
the details are irrelevant

Sorry, worded that a bit awkwardly. The first paragraph is referring to whether or not the baker was being homophobic, the second is about whether or not the government is homophobic.

>itt: people that don't know that denying service isn't a blanket right and is subject to conditions

>Homophobes are so opressed, why do those filthy leftists discriminate me based on my beliefs

> shitty beliefs
Talking about biases. His beliefs are as valid as yours and he happens to not like your kind, fag

>(I'd like to think most of us)

Attached: 423c744ee053114627e03b2aef6c0028.jpg (736x1102, 103K)

This HAS to be bait.

Attached: Picture5.jpg (1278x550, 77K)

>The question I'm following is whether or not that makes the government homophobic, and I'm not sure it does.
No the government is not imo.

The baker is. He might not hate gays for being gay (probably does) but he admitted to discriminate which alone is enough.
I’m just saying that if you are gay and denied a job there, you should definitely lawyer up.
No I see your point. I am merely argueing myself

Why? It's a pretty reasonable post

Good stuff, Colorado. Hoping the same thing happens here in Northern Ireland. These fucking queers need to be stopped before they start targetting people for being Christian.

fuck faggots and fuck religious people

>What if this entirely different irrelevant scenario that isn't being discussed though, huh?
You gays are so stupid

Lol now imagine the reaction if some nightclub opened up for anyone but white males.

It's top-to-bottom "christians are ebil, gays are da bes!" nonsense. Not reasonable at all.

Well until any of that happens it will remain completely irrelevant

It's just normal.

I’m straight and this is not an entirely different scenario you dumb fuck.
Why are internet right wingers always like this?

Attached: WDYTWA.png (644x644, 936K)

That isn't what he said at all, do you have a persecution complex?

to be perfectly honest homos are among the most annoying aspects of the 21st century, their never ending societal aggravation is a big waste of everyone's time and attention

>It's not an employer discriminating against someone, it's simply someone refusing a service to another
>OH YEAH? WELL WHAT IF AN EMPLOYEE IS GAY OR THEY'RE DENYING GAYS JOBS? WHAT THEN?!
Disabled queer.

That’s totally how I am reasoning
Shaddilay

This. And forced acceptance of their puerile lifestyle is as rampant as ever

I miss the don't ask don't tell days

It shouldn't be subject to conditions though, let the free market work things out.
Goldwater was right.

>If a state-run bakery refused to make a same-sex wedding cake, that would make for a homophobic government.
That's implying the action of not wanting to support gay marriage is "homophobic" and therefore wrong.
>Although (I'd like to think most of us) don't agree with this baker's views
Again implying his views are wrong and should be derided.
>they protected a homophobe's right
Outright insulting the man and accusing him of hatred because he doesn't believe the same thing you do.
>to have shitty beliefs
And this is where all pretenses were dropped and the "fuck Christians" part shone through.

Bakers shouldnt be forced to serve people.

government
>don't care
people
>yes

Meant for this spastic:

Tbh that was your post, regardless of his needless hostility

My post was in all caps?

That is literally what you said. It's almost a direct quote, minus the caps lock.

>if the quote is put in all caps it stops being representative of what I said
>even if it's directly what I said
What is wrong with your brain?

Based, homos btfo

>a big waste of everyone's time
You could've just given us marriage without complaining about "muh tradition" :^)

Pretty good

It's all rather deliberately vague and then you went and generalised all his statements to make it appear as though he's talking specifically about Christians being evil for hating gays (which not all Christians do). As far as the "shitty belief“ statement, do you honestly believe homosexuality is a choice? That's really the only reason I can see someone refusing service to a fag and I think that's a pretty retarded belief in itself so he's justified to call it such

Youre Polish, we didn't give you anything

You don't deserve marriage. You don't contribute to society on any level.

>It's all rather deliberately vague
>that baker is a homophobe with shitty beliefs

You are fucking disabled. He refused to print a message of support for faggot shit. He didn't refuse to serve a customer because they were gay. You fucking retarded cockgoblin.

Gays aren’t protected under federal law yet

Did I say literally? The contents were the same even if the way it was phrased and written were different it doesn't change the fact it's an irrelevant hypothetical scenario

>That's really the only reason I can see
Well then it must be true. GUYS, GUYS, THIS GUY CANT SEE ANY OTHER REASON TO REFUSE SERVICE TO A FAG. CASE CLOSED. THIS GUY CANT SEE IT,SO THERES NO OTHER WAY. EVERYBODY CAN GO HOME NOW

That's not what it means. When the Supreme Court rules something as "narrow" it means their ruling has to do with very specific details and cannot be used as precedent for future cases.

Their ruling had nothing to do with the actual anti-gay discrimination, they ruled that Colorado's initial actions in the case had not been fair to him as they didn't "consider his religion" enough and basically threw it out on that grounds.

>You don't contribute to society on any level.
>Breeding is the only way you can contribute to society
By your logic a lot of hets aren't contributing to society as well.

Correct. They aren't. But most of them are at least ABLE to. You are not and never will be able to. You are inherently without value.

>The difference is leftists think bakers should be forced to make the gay cake

But I thought you can't discriminate politically, #JusticeForRosanne

M'lady

Still
>Breeding is the only way you can contribute to society
In that case i don't know why we aren't still living in caves since the only point of life is fucking, which doesn't require technology.

We had the exact same case in Norn Iron, but our retarded courts sided with the gays, despite gay marriage being illegal here. It's downright retarded, there are hundreds of bakeries they could have went to, but gays being the dram queens they are, decided to target a Christian bakery. One person's beliefs doesn't trump another's, you cannot force a person to do something against their belief, they should have just went to another bakery.

During segregation, blacks couldn't own their own businesses in majority white areas, so they had no choice but to buy their food from the back of the building, usually food that had been sitting out a long time.

What use is an invention if there's no one left to use them you dumb queer?

They've appealed the decision and we'll get a final answer in a few months. I really hope the court wakes up and realises how fucked it is if they start enforcing labour.

based and redpilled

Jow Forums fuck off

The court purposefully ruled narrowly to not set a precedent

>Gays are the bane of existence!
AHA HA
NO NO NO

>making up quotes
Ah yes, the gays. A really intelligent lot.

That wouldn't surprise me actually if that did happen. I would just choose not to go there but I wouldn't want to anyway so instead I would find somewhere else

>7-2
>Narrowly

Yeah, that would be ridiculous and illegal, for sure!

>tries really hard to ignore the women-only Wonder Woman showings and women-only gyms

"Narrow" doesn't mean it was close. It means it can't set a precedent for other cases. It's a yank thing.

Don't forget the the women's institute, the girl's brigade, the brownies, etc, all some of the largest organisations in the country and no men allowed. But of course, not allowing girl's into the boy scouts is sexist.

You're saying that gays are bad because they don't breed, even though they make up around 2% of the population so it doesn't matter. How am i the stupid one?

I didn't say gays are bad. I said you are inherently without value, faggot. Get those balls out of your face and maybe you'd be able to read shit more clearly.

>I didn't say gays are bad. I said you are inherently without value

Attached: 1526986141406.png (645x729, 77K)

Bad people actively take away the value of a society. You are simply worthless. Learn English, you retarded faggot.

Are you mad?

Attached: 1527858165731.jpg (450x675, 23K)

No. I'm mocking a retarded faggot. I see I've found another one to mock, though.

Enjoy your early death due to suicide. If the AIDS doesn't get you first.

I hate fags but I can tolerate lesbians; is there a name for that?

Still don't see why i shouldn't be able to get married.
cuckold

Attached: 0e9.jpg (600x600, 27K)

Because marriage comes with tax benefits that are specifically designed around procreation and the creation of new taxpayers. You cannot procreate. You cannot create a new taxpayer. You do not deserve married. You retarded child molester.

inb4 some shit about impotent couples, demonstrating you're even more of a brainlet than previously thought possible

Well
I'll just adopt

Attached: 1525979629456.jpg (638x425, 73K)

That doesn't CREATE a new taxpayer. Therefore is utterly irrelevant and shouldn't require marriage.

You braindead child rapist.

It would if the kid just ends up in prison
Gives them more of a chance of being a productive adult, hence a taxpayer

But it ensures that the future taxpayer will have a better home than the orphanage.

Again, utterly irrelevant you disabled cunt. That's not what legal marriage was created for. You fucking spastic child molesting paedophile retard.

>utterly irrelevant
>That's not what legal marriage was created for.
Non arguments

Attached: 1527519848214.jpg (641x491, 39K)