ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Ok. I'll answer your question. 

Across the board discrimination solely based upon one's appearance is just plain wrong.  Agreeing to serve all needs of an individual except one is different in my mind.  I was raised (and taught that in my public school education) to believe that there are exceptions to be considered along the way in everything.  Tolerance.  I guess that notion is dead.  How about the exception granted Quakers in the draft ?  They were the only religion allowed Conscientious Objector status in the draft.  I guess today that wouldn't fly.

Y'all are acting as if same sex marriage is the only issue at hand.  Let's not forget that it is not settled law.  It is not legal in all states.  The SCOTUS has yet to rule on it.  Apparently that will come very soon.  Cases are to be argued 28 April.  It will end all the debate.

Same sex marriage as a legal thing is a brand new thing (2004).  Acceptance is growing.  60% of Americans support it.  However 40% of America still has a problem with it.  An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage.  Many religions are amending their policies to support it.  My arguments have been taking the devil's advocate position in all of this.  I don't care about it anymore myself.  Its a done deal as far as I am concerned. 

Here's some timelines on the subject of same sex marriage.

Timeline of same-sex marriage

Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

Once it is a done deal, we are back to square one on the law in Indiana.  How is it objected to next ?  The law was passed as a reaction to the Hobby Lobby case, which was about the subject of abortion and religious rights.  It never was about gay rights.  Y'all tried to make it that way.  I objected to y'alls reaction that it was.  That is why I brought up the Muslim question.

Now will you answer my question ? 

 islander wrote: 
They aren't a monolith either, but some do like their private tyranny.

If you're hoping for libertarians to make the difference, then you are indeed screwed.

 miamizsun wrote: 
This is one of those place where I think the libertarian view just goes too far. You have the right to associate with whomever you want to personally, but as a business, you are operating in the public realm with public support. you can target a subset of the public as your customers (left handers, women, religiously oriented, carbophobic...), but you shouldn't be able to deny someone service as long as there is no demonstrable harm to your business. 

Businesses can be stupid, they can be jerks, but they can't be bigots. 

Edit: I think your first link sort of says this. Your second one definitely does not.  If the libertarians can't even agree that the government has no business here,  then we are all screwed. 

interesting stuff over at bhl

Indiana

and here at lib.me

Penn Jillette Can't Have His Gay Wedding Cake and Eat It Too

 islander wrote: 
Or at least third grade.

 kurtster wrote: 
Special pleading.

Keep digging...

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurt, really, just stop. You've gone way past silly and are now rapidly approach deep stupid.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I asked first.

 kurtster wrote: 
How about you tell me how it's not?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Tell me how across the board discrimination is equal to a religious discrimination of a single event ?

Perhaps its time to abolish religion, across the board.  Its just a bunch of institutionalized superstition anyway you look at it.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Sing a merry Celtic tune:

 miamizsun wrote: 
say "hi Manbird"

 miamizsun wrote: 
Ask him to make me an offer.

 miamizsun wrote: 
What if you aren't wearing pants either?

 Prodigal_SOB wrote: 
you own a business

a guy walks in with no pants

he asks you to sell him your pants

what do you do?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 OK, I was with you up until this, but now we are being unfairly maligned.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Yeah, but he's been a heretic from way back.

 miamizsun wrote: 
There's a reason to boycott Indiana if ever there was one...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
for some people...not so much

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Oh, they exist all right. They exist.