As if the supporters of the bill aren't biased themselves. Yeah, I'll definitely take the opinions of the Family Research Council in mind.
I know how to read and look things up for myself, thanks.
Considering the number of people like myself who are for these bills yet against bigotry and closed mindedness and such, obviously there is something strange going on here (or at least any critical evaluation will turn this up). That's not even what I mean though. What I mean is people like you are coming in saying this is a pro-Christian anti-LGTB bill and that is the end of the story. As has been argued and shown again and again (and again and again and again and again and again and again...) that is not the case.
Say that you yourself own a business, and in comes one of your high school teachers from a religious school you attended who tried to beat the devil out of you. You were harassed for your beliefs just as your homosexual friends or atheist friends were harassed as well. To you, this is a terrible person, and in your own place of business - a place where you put your money in blood into - you do not want to provide her whatever services you offer. What
you are arguing is that the government should force you to.
Let us look at a homosexual photographer who is asked to help do a shoot for an anti-gay marriage campaign. What
you are saying is that the government should force them to participate in this despite the distaste they have for the campaign and despite the fact that they are the ones who own their business and will willfully lose their own profits.
Let's look at a Jewish restaurant where - because they are dicks - a group of Neo-Nazis comes in and gets the lowly Jews to serve them. They come in with their tank tops, sporting their tattoos, and their smug attitude. What
you are saying is that the government should force the Jewish business owners, who personally own the establishment and would only be hurting their own profits by kicking the customers out, to serve the Neo-Nazis.
Let's now look at a hotel that is privately owned by a family that is pro-choice. A group wants to come in and host a gala to raise funds for a pro-life organization. According to
you, it is fine for them to be forced by governmental laws to host a gala supporting something they are morally opposed to despite the fact that it is their property, their income, and their building.
Really? Think about that, because this is the position you are supporting. If you want to allow the government to control how citizens can act in their own establishments, who they can let on their property, and all that comes with this - fine. Build yourself a time machine, go back to the 40s, and take your pick of horrible fascist governments. Hell, continue down this path and maybe America can create its own gestapo who will hunt down homophobes and ship them off to concentration camps. Luckily, the bill was passed, and all sorts of bills supporting individual rights are being passed, so those of us still holding on to the concept of America will hopefully not have to fall victim to the government controlled, fascist country you so desprately want simply because you feel you are more entitled to certain rights than others.
That's all there is to say.
