The gay rights debate is over

[Professor]

I hear you, Spider. Now, I realize that LGBT is technically not a "protected class" in Federal law. But, I don't understand how you can make it OK to discriminate against an entire class of people who have no choice in their being a member of that class (LGBT), yet it's NOT OK to discriminate against another entire class of people who have no choice in their being a member of that class (minorities, women, etc.).

Also, haven't we held, for centuries, that one person's religious liberties end where another person's liberty begins? Perhaps Non or someone else can help me, but in my business law classes I seem to remember a case whereby anyone who opens a business to the public may not refuse service to a customer so long as they have the means to provide that service (have stock, have time, etc.).

[Winchester]

[Professor]

[Spider]

[John Galt]

[Indy]

The religious bogus angle came into play because the bigots realized they no longer had any legal ground to stand on, so they're trying to backdoor their way into discrimination by saying this is what God wants.

The funniest part about all that, which Jon Stewart pointed out last night, is that what they probably DIDN'T anticipate is that under this proposed law, Muslims could refuse to serve them for being Christians on the grounds that they could be considered "infidels."

LOL. OOOOOOPS.

When religion is your argument, you don't have one.

[John Galt]

[Spider]

[Dylan]

Haha you're pretty mad huh galt? Move to Zimbabwe. You can discriminate all you want there.

Howver, America marches forward.

[John Galt]