It's cute you don't think Boehner and McConnell are still in the Republican party. They give Obama everything he asks for, just like good little Democrat progressives.

Maybe because this topic is about Bat-Shit-Crazy Hillary Clinton, who is a woman.

You think no one voted for "the first black president" just because he was black? Your ignorance is incredible.

Are you saying you have proof that no person would vote for her, simply because they want a woman as President? Please post the proof.

Does that mean you will not vote for her, or that in the end you will simply hold your nose and choose her over "that evil Republican", which ever one is chosen?

Full disclosure: I voted for Obama in 2008, and stand by my decision, even though he is the worst Executive Officer this country has seen, in so many different ways it defies counting.

Full disclosure: I voted for the Green Party, led by Dr Jill Stein, in 2012, because she seemed the only candidate with intelligence and good character. I don't support 90%+ of the Green Party planks, but my wishes aren't what's important in a national leader.

Full disclosure: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, nor will I vote for the Republican candidate, in 2016. I can't stand her personally, or the Republican party in general. I won't waste my vote on either. It will go towards the candidate who I feel best deserves it.

That is how you do a full disclosure of your vote, if you think it is so important for us to know. Not this insipid crap of "I do not plan on...".

Wait a sec. I thought that was non-unionizing radiation.

I'm gonna havta rethink my support of that now.

Thank you for replying. I couldn't stand McCain either. He was against all the conservative issues (a real maverick) two years before running for the presidency, but became Mr. Conservative for the campaign. Oh, and all we were told was that he was a war hero and a POW (did I mention he was a Vietnam POW war hero?), rather than any meaningful details or personal stances.

  I disagree on Obama's performance, and its causes/obstacles, but everyone has their own view.

Also good to see more third-party voters, for any reason. I voted Green party last time, really liked their candidate.

Wait a sec... I'm supposed to pay for those things???

This same AC has posted so many "evil Republican" stories, that are so outlandish, I can't decide if he is a moron liberal that just loves ranting idiotically about Republicans, or if he is a moron conservative that loves planting a false-flag attack in a thread.

How do you distinguish the pee-water from the pool-water?

Back when I was a teenager, one of my cousins got a copy of the book. We looked through it, but weren't brave/stupid enough to try any of them. I heard later how bad the recipes were.

Well, just move that comment to the Beta-only version, and then ban Beta.

Hell no, I like the anal porn. Why pick on anal porn? You hater.

So you are falling back to your first fallacy, thinking the state has the power or authority to make me serve someone. The state also thinks it has this power, and the authority to enforce its belief.

And, again, you are talking about the power and authority to force me to provide services to people I already provide services to. My willingness to serve someone just isn't good enough for you; I must knuckle under and admit the state can force me to do something that I would otherwise do from common decency. If my actions are done from my own choice, you can't accept it.

As an aside, I do find it humorous that you and others keep insisting that to prove my point, I have to change my policy and deny service to a protected group, so that the state can crack down on me. By your logic, the proper way to prove I don't kill random strangers by my own choice, as opposed to by state law, is to go out and kill a stranger. Then I 'll see how much power the state has over my choice to not kill people. It is a ridiculous example, but it logically follows your argument.

This argument from you isn't whether the state has a certain law, which of course the laws you are referring to exist. You keep mentioning them, and I keep dismissing them, since they have no bearing on my actions. You need me to acknowledge that the state has this power over my personal choice, even though it would not change my personal choice. I don't acknowledge that power, because it does not exist, because the law does not make me change my actions or choices.

Where your argument really falls apart is if I were to live in a country that does not have this plethora of anti-discrimination laws. My choices of who I would offer my services to would not change one bit. Therefor, my choice now to offer my services to everyone is not forced or constrained by any law that establishes protected groups.

So, in a nutshell, you are so upset you are arguing with a stranger on the internet because, while he is perfectly willing to provide services to anybody, he has the gall to insist that the choice to provide service to everybody is not made by the government.

Wow. Now you're throwing the ADA at me. You are getting desperate to prove a point. Go on, sue me for ADA violations. When I park my car in the handicapped spot, and push my wife into court in her wheelchair, maybe while mentioning my military disability (which I have already proven in court to avoid other legal action), I don't think the judge is going to give you much leeway.

Just for you, I will modify my policy of not discriminating against any particular group, and incorporate this into my company policies:

There, now I have to discriminate against people like you. Not because of what you are (white, black, disabled, gay, democrat, communist, christian, muslim, illegal alien, or any other defined group people are placed in), but because of what you think. It's not simply that you think the state does have the power to force me to do business with a particular group of people, it is that you believe the state should have the authority to force me to perform professional work for any particular group.

I don't like to discriminate against people, which is one reason I don't do so. But if I am being threatened with legal action despite my non-discrimination, I find it sensible to avoid business dealings with people who are insisting on that threat even though I don't discriminate.

I did read exactly what you wrote. You can hide behind minced words all you want, buy your message was perfectly clear. As I said, this thread and story are about serving gay customers. Stop pretending you were being original.

And your rebuttal of the phrase, " people who feel they are owed my services", is a stupid argument. Of course I am not saying that they demand free service. When has payment ever been an argument. They feel they are owed my service, which they will pay for, whether I want to offer that service to them or not. In other words, they feel that they are owed my paid service. They feel they have the right and authority to force me to work for them against my will.

Again, I don't discriminate against any particular group. If they can pay my fee, I will provide my services. That is because I choose to do so. If I choose not to, no one can force me to give that service. Not the state. Not my mother. Not even you.

And as I also have said above, I have refused service to a former customer for, as you put it, "an arbitrary basis that has nothing to do with safety or the larger public interest. " So, your argument is false, even if you refuse to admit it.

Yeah, you did. At least acknowledge you arguments, and admit if they missed the mark.

Here you are saying that gays will punish my business if I discriminate against non-gay racial groups. So when you said that non-gays will punish my business for a supposed hateful stance, you were saying that would be in response to an anti-gay policy.

Also, this is in a thread/story about discriminating against gays. You were obviously keeping in line with the thread topic, and not referring to killing baby seals for their fur.

I have no problem with customers of any particular group. I have friends and family in all of them. I have a problem with people who feel they are owed my services, whether I agree to it or not.

I said that I choose my customers. BarbaraHudson replied with

The implication of that last sentence is that I don't allow gay people to be my customers, and that straight people will punish me for that position. So, yes, I'm bright enough to know when some is claiming something about me that isn't true.

As for the rest, read my response to Jeremi below.