So a judge rules that a business must serve gays...

[thinshavings]

and provide their wedding cakes because it is their constitutional right to be served.
So tell me why a business can post a 30.06 sign and deny me my right to be served, I have a constitutional right to carry.
30.06 signs are unconstitutional.

[The Annoyed Man]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't fit the narrative.....

Edited to add the following.....

.....but it is more complicated than that. Right or wrong, you do have the option of leaving your gun at the door. You may have reasons for not wanting to do so, but there's nothing physically preventing you from leaving it at the door if you want to enter. The gay person does not have that option of leaving their gayness at the door.

But the issue is more complicated than that. Business property owners do have some rights. If they want to keep your gun out, they can. But let's say two CHLs want to enter the store posted with a 30.06 sign, and one is gay and the other is straight. The store owner can post the sign and bar both of you from entering with your gun, but he CAN'T bar either of you from entering because of your sexuality.

Frankly, I agree that a Christian baker should not be forced against his religious conscience to bake a cake for celebrating a thing to which he is morally and religiously opposed. But let's take religion and homosexuality out of the picture.....

What if you are an atheist baker who is asked to bake a cake for a little persons' convention? Do you have a right to say "no" because dwarfism creeps you out? Probably not. Personally, I believe that activists directly target Christian-owned businesses for the purpose of forcing them out of business, and that just stinks. The real question is, is there any room left in modern society for people of faith to actually practice their faith according their conscience? I've come to the conclusion that we are at the end of an age, and America is learning to dispense with religious people by marginalizing them, the same way gays were once marginalized.

This is one more reason why I am choosing to gradually opt out of society.

[ScottDLS]

This court ruling was not in Texas and may not apply. So I start with the premise that a business can refuse to do business with whomever they wish, unless otherwise prohibited by law. Not aware of a Texas or Federal statute that prohibits private discrimination against gays.

But what I don't get is the police power of the State to help me discriminate against gays. No "30.08", trespass by homosexuals, makes it a crime for said person to walk into my store in defiance of my bigotry.

My personal opinion is that Texas should also not help business discriminate against lawful carry, as is the case in many other states, and in Texas for LEO's. But that's just me.

[JALLEN]

Somewhere long ago, the idea was that government could only stop you from doing what you wanted to do, not make you do something, maybe not even pay taxes. Somehow that got switched around, so that we accept the idea that government can make you do things that you don't want to do, for your own good.

What should the government be empowered to do? Forbidden to do?

My idea was the government should suppress violence, build libraries and roads to get to them. If you could get to a library, and violence was suppressed, you had everything you needed to live your life. Of course, if you were lazy and stupid, life would be hard.

[Oldgringo]

Whatever happened to the 'goodole' days?

[TexasJohnBoy]

Yeah man, the good old days. Check out that Discover sticker...

[baldeagle]

This "classic" conflict between rights was created by judges, who decreed that homosexuals have the right to marry, even though there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage and even though marriage has always been the purview of the states. The 14th Amendment has been used by the courts to pervert all sorts of freedoms that once existed simply by chanting "due process, due process" while completely ignoring the preceding phrase about "privileges and immunities". Justice Thomas, who is routinely disparaged and ridiculed by the left and by many blacks in this country, is the ONLY modern justice who has pointed out the irony in the excessive emphasis on the second phrase while exercising a passive blindness to the first.

The Amendment decrees that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The first phrase is used by pro-illegal-immigration people to claim that birthright citizenship belongs to all who are born within our borders while ignoring completely the explanatory phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". A foreign citizen, giving birth to a child within our borders, is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US but to the jurisdiction of the country of their legal residence and therefore birthright citizenship cannot apply to them. Yet very able lawyers will argue otherwise. Common sense and common law tells you that children are the citizens of the country of the legal residence of their parents, but common sense is no longer very common, at least not in America.

The second phrase is routinely abrogated now by states and cities passing ordinances that make criminals out of people exercising their First Amendment rights by refusing to celebrate gay marriage. This conflict would never have arisen had the Court not created a right out of thin air when none before existed. Kudos to the gays for having been creative enough to convince society that their rights were being violated when they were not, but shame of them for contributing to one more brick in the destruction of freedom in America.

The third phrase has been used as a cudgel by the US government to force states to comply with federal desires despite no authority to do so having been granted by the people in the Constitution. Thus a farmer refusing to grow wheat can be found guilty of violating federal law and honest citizens can be forced to pay exorbitant fees and undergo rigorous examinations to receive the government's approval to own weapons which the government considers "dangerous".

The end result of all of this will either be the increased tyranny of the federal government until America no longer exists as a free nation or the people rise up and overthrow the existing order and reinstate the freedom established by the founders. Given the profound ignorance of much of the population, the former is much more likely than the latter.

[sherlock7]

Baldeagle, I just now read your post as I have been out of town.
Your post was very well said and I agree with what you stated 100%!
I have watched our Great Nation's values and principals disintegrate right before my eyes and it has been a sad experience.
Our great nation and our grandkids deserve better.
Just like Rome; decay from within!

Semper Fi

[karder]

The gay person does not have that option of leaving their gayness at the door.

This is one of the parts of the "gay rights" narrative that bothers me the most. Of course a gay person can leave their gayness at the door. Any person that goes into a business to conduct normal transactions, does not need to reveal their sexual practices during the course of that transaction. If a person decides to exercise their 1st amendment rights to express ideas, thoughts, opinions or take part in speech or activities that a business owner disagrees with, in my opinion, that business owner has the full right to tell the offending person to vacate the premises. I assure you that if a business owner throws someone out for expressing ideas that don't fly with the liberal/progressive agenda, that business owner will be hailed a hero by the political/media/academia establishments. For the leftist, it is perfectly fine to refuse services, but only to the classes of people they object to.
Obviously, it gets a little more murky when the transaction involves services for a wedding, where a person has to reveal it is for a gay wedding, but the government still has no right to force business to participate, particularly when there are many other sympathetic individuals which will provide the same service. It has nothing to do with protecting "the rights of gays" and is about forcing a change in attitudes about homosexuality.

All of this "gay rights" nonsense has nothing to do with protecting rights and is about subverting free speech, religion, and traditional values. There is nothing discriminatory about traditional marriage laws and there never was. Gays have always had the right to get married. If a gay guy wants to get married, he can go find a nice girl and get married. I have never heard of a judge refusing to marry anyone because they were gay.
Of course, two gay men could not get married to each other, but that is not discrimination because two straight men could not get married to each other. Unions between same-sex couples, while permitted in our society, did not fall into the definition of a "marriage" until the Supreme Court's unlawful ruling.
The liberal argument is so shallow that it has to jump back and forth and be entirely situational and it requires society to be willfully delusional and dishonest.

[Charles L. Cotton]

11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in the Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues forum.)

We've gone from discussing the extension of the "wedding cake" application to 30.06 signs to a violation of Rule 11. Let's get back on topic.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

The gay person does not have that option of leaving their gayness at the door.

This is one of the parts of the "gay rights" narrative that bothers me the most. Of course a gay person can leave their gayness at the door. Any person that goes into a business to conduct normal transactions, does not need to reveal their sexual practices during the course of that transaction.

I think you misunderstood my intent. Of course they can leave their practices at the door, but not their preferences. Look, I'm a guy that takes the genetics argument with a huge grain of salt. But for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if a person is gay for genetic reasons, reasons of nurturing, psychiatric reasons, whatever....... he or she IS gay. Let's use religion instead of sexual attractions. A store owner can ask me to leave my Bible at the door, but he has no way to make me leave my christianity at the door. He can bar me from proselytizing on his premises, but he can't stop me from BEING a Christian.

Ditto a gay person. Whatever the possible origins of homosexuality, a business owner has no way to stop a person from being what they are. He can only control their behavior in the store, not who they are internally. That is why comparing 30.06 to gayness is an invalid comparison......which puts us back on topic.

[Javier730]

The good thing about it is we are not being forced to do business with any places that have 30.06 signs. Whether we like the laws or not we need to follow them. If you see a 30.06 sign you can go back to your vehicle and disarm or you can take your business elsewhere. Ill choose the latter.

[The Annoyed Man]

The good thing about it is we are not being forced to do business with any places that have 30.06 signs. Whether we like the laws or not we need to follow them. If you see a 30.06 sign you can go back to your vehicle and disarm or you can take your business elsewhere. Ill choose the latter.

Exactly.

[karder]

I think you misunderstood my intent. Of course they can leave their practices at the door, but not their preferences.

I understand what you mean. Of course a person doesn't stop being gay when they walk in a store, but there is no reason that anyone in the store needs to know they are gay. If a fellow walks into my store with a hammer and cycle t-shirt and declares to be a communist, as a business owner I should have the right to say, "I don't do business with communists, get out". I feel the same way about gays, or just about anyone else a business owner does not want to do business with. In fact, if a business owner wants to put up a 30.06 sign, I have no problem with that, but I will patronize another business and not give him any of my money.

[Javier730]

Of course a person doesn't stop being gay when they walk in a store, but there is no reason that anyone in the store needs to know they are gay.

In a situation like the op posted, the wedding cake situation, it would be obvious the could was gay. The fact that someone is gay can be made obvious without then saying, "hey I'm gay". Couples tend to do things that will make it obvious they are a couple, like holding hands for example.

What if two metrosexual men walk into a bar that does not allow gays and order some appletinis? Should they be told to leave because the owner, manager or bartender believes they are gay or should they be asked if they are gay first? What if they refused to answer?