<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> You're just repeating yourself here. There's nothing you said right now, that you haven't said in the previous post. So my response is gonna be exactly the same either way. You are a proponent of Liberalism, and it shows your utter hypocrisy when you so blatantly pick-and-choose which portions of Liberalism you would like to enforce. Had the Christian Baker refused to serve this gay couple altogether, then yes I would be against this behavior. The Baker was willing to serve them, just on his own terms, and not on their terms. But once the gay couple expect him to go out of his way, to cater to their personal lifestyle which is a direct affront to his religious beliefs, then that oversteps the so-called "boundaries" of Liberalism and it crosses into new territory. It's the same as forcing an Imam or Priest to perform a marriage between a man and his sister, or between a man and another man. Or forcing a Catholic painter to paint a painting glorifying the Ku Klux Klan. Or forcing a Jewish-owned Grocery Store to start serving non-Kosher meat. This directly contradicts the 1993 Federal Religious Freedom Act , which was put into place to protect anyone's religious freedoms from being infringed upon. But you're full of contradictions. You say you believe in "Religious Freedom"....but only until it crosses the line that you yourself drew. And the lines keep shifting year-by-year. In the 1990's, it was "live and let live", but in the 2010's, it is "You either serve me on my terms, or else I'm going to report you to the authorities." If you can't see for yourself what this will inevitably lead to in the coming years, then I have no use in even talking to you. If the Baker finds his customer's order to be distasteful, then he can refuse to make that design, and that's his private right to do so. I myself have experienced it before when I visited bakeries, and I see nothing wrong with it. I'm done with this discussion. I've said what I needed to say and anything I say more than this would be repetition. You seem to be under the delusion that discrimination is legal so long as it tarted up as a "religious" or "personal" stand. That's not the case. I suggest you educate yourself on the laws of this country.

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> The First Amendment in America protects you from the Government infringing on your freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which means it technically gives you the freedom to not participate in any action which you think might violate your religion or personal beliefs. So therefore, no one can step in and force a Muslim woman to take off her hijab. And no one can force a Baker to bake a gay-wedding cake if his religious beliefs go against that. Discrimination is one thing, and if the Baker refused to actually serve the gay couple, then yes he would be doing something illegal. This Business Owner refusing to allow his Muslim employees to pray at work is an invalid comparison, and you got it completely backwards, because all he's obligated to do (legally) is not prevent his own employees from practicing their 1st Amendment Rights, so long as it doesn't place any significant burden on the business itself. It's a perfectly valid comparison. You defended the Colorado baker by arguing that serving the gay wedding cake would offend his deeply held beliefs; I gave you an example of Muslim behavior offending the deeply held beliefs of an employer. You have now decided to preform acrobatics to justify the discrimination against the gays while being against anti-Muslim discrimination. You therefore are a hypocrite. And not a very bright one at that. Because if you were, you'd realize that just as many Americans despise Muslims as they do gays and if it were to become "ok" to turn people away simply because the business owner disapproves of their lifestyle, we'd see plenty of hijabis and other apparent Muslims denied service because "towelheads blew up America." But anyway, I do not feel this exchange is serving any further purpose. You can bitch all you want, but gay marriage will soon because legal across the entire United States because of quickly changing values, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> You're repeating the exact same argument that Tallaabo made, and I already made a response to that. So....do you want me to copy/paste my posts again, or would you prefer to just scroll up and read what I already posted? Would that be too difficult for you? A business owner was sued by some Muslims in my city. They wanted to pray during their shift and he refused. When confronted, he said: "I let Muslims work here. Treat them just like everybody else. But I won't have them praying to Allah on my property. That ain't right. That's against my personal beliefs." I suppose he considered Islam an "unnatural and perverted" lifestyle. Why else would he be opposed to them praying on his property? I also suppose you must support him in his decision—unless, of course, you're a hypocrite.

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> WRONG Abdul There is not a single McDonald's or Macy's that refuses to serve gay people in this country. There are no laws or "discriminatory business practices" that currently exist on the books here i America. So there goes your argument out the window What gay people in America are trying to eliminate is any sort of personal opposition to their unnatural and perverted lifestyle. You yourself supplied a glaring example of discriminatory business practices. When that Colorado baker refused to supply the gay couple with a wedding cake, despite providing that service to straight couples, his actions stepped out out the bounds of "personal opposition" and entered the realm of discrimination. This should be apparent to any sensible person. Unfortunately, I am afraid you do not meet this criterion.

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> Enjoining what's right and forbidding what's evil is one of the most BASIC concepts of Islam, you're really a strange one Tallaabo. “Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.” (Prophet Muhammad) Furthermore, isn't "change" something fundamental and very important to Western and global society? Didn't Martin Luther King Jr change America for the better? Didn't Mahatma Gandhi do the same for India? Would you consider MLK Jr or Gandhi's actions "whining" or are you only reserving this judgement for Muslims, because of your deep inferiority-complex? So it's okay for those guys to do it, but when Muslims or conservative Christians do the same thing it's suddenly bad? I'm very shocked with you, I really am. Seeing that you appear to be faith-based bigot, I find it astonishing that you would presume to compare your beliefs to those of Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King was opposed to policies that degraded the human personality. During the civil rights movement, he led blacks in protests against businesses that either refused to serve black customers, or served them with caveats like, "Blacks may ride the bus; but they must sit in the back and give up their seat when a white patron demands." During this struggle, many whites based their opposition to civil rights for blacks upon their faith, arguing that the Bible forbade interracial mixing. Today it is the gays who are protesting faith-based bigotry and the discriminatory laws and business practices that result from it. And like the blacks, they will prevail. Just as the nation turned its back on race-based discrimination and changed for the better, it will turn its back on anti-gay discrimination and change for the better.

The entire government is corrupt. What can you expect from a group that is unaccountable to the people?