(05-16-2014 11:29 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  lol, Sun Trust can endorse or not endorse whoever they like...

I mean, those two dudes have the right to say whatever they want...and their sponsors have the right to pull their sponsorship if they want.

SO if they decide to adopt a NO fudge packers policy you're fine with that?

(05-16-2014 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as Sun Trust's decision I have two points. Its Sun Trust's listings and they can chose to market their property as they see fit. Besides, its not like they support those protections for Gay people.

Wait, so what's your position on the wedding cake bakers and photographer?

If the Benham's feel that they have a case, they are welcome to sue, as all public accommodations laws cover religion.

If Gay people feel that they have a case in the few areas where Gays are included in public accommodations laws, then they are welcome to sue as well.

Sun Trust has reversed their decision.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/suntru...-brothers/

(05-16-2014 09:02 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Sun Trust has reversed their decision.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/suntru...-brothers/

Hit them in the pocketbook that always works. Truthfully, if I did business with SunTrust I'd be making some noise. At least they would hear my voice.

(05-16-2014 03:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/exclus...-attacked/

All because they hold conservative/religious views? But it's not okay for a business to decide not to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages?

Double standard? Thoughts?

They are allowed to have conservative views and the people they work for are allowed to fire them for it.

America is a free country.

This is the crux of the issue - you summed it up quite nicely...you guys cannot have it both ways.

Either "America is a free country" and businesses are able to discriminate to customers and partners as they see fit - OR - all individuals get the same access. Many here seem to want this behavior to only be allowed when it suits them.

A bank cannot justify pulling real estate listings just because the customer doesn't like the gays - just as they would not do it just because a customer is in a same-sex relationship.

It's wrong however you slice it.

Tom in Lazybrook - regardless of how you feel about these gentlemen's beliefs, I am surprised that you would support this activity from the bank. It is a double standard.

Of course they changed course......they have a mostly Southern corporate footprint.

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/exclus...-attacked/

All because they hold conservative/religious views? But it's not okay for a business to decide not to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages?

Double standard? Thoughts?

Hussein Obama expressed the belief marriage was between a man and a woman when he ran for President in 2008. Now the Gestapo of the left is ruining lives for the same beliefs today. Only in Hussein's America.

(05-16-2014 02:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 02:18 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/exclus...-attacked/

All because they hold conservative/religious views? But it's not okay for a business to decide not to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages?

Double standard? Thoughts?

That's not all they did.

1) They advocated, publicly, banning Gay people in Charlotte from having any rights of protest, petition, speech, assembly, and association.

Here's the rest of the case against them

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/be...ious-right

isn't it amazing how people act when they only have the foxnews/daily caller version of events???

It was 10 years ago and it's an opinion. Seems those aren't ok unless you fit a certain criteria of a people.

ah so if you were racist 10 years ago then that means you should be let off the hook in the eyes of public perception

It worked for Robert Byrd with you liberals

(05-16-2014 08:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as Sun Trust's decision I have two points. Its Sun Trust's listings and they can chose to market their property as they see fit. Besides, its not like they support those protections for Gay people.

Wait, so what's your position on the wedding cake bakers and photographer?

If the Benham's feel that they have a case, they are welcome to sue, as all public accommodations laws cover religion.

If Gay people feel that they have a case in the few areas where Gays are included in public accommodations laws, then they are welcome to sue as well.

Answer my question tom.

(05-17-2014 07:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as Sun Trust's decision I have two points. Its Sun Trust's listings and they can chose to market their property as they see fit. Besides, its not like they support those protections for Gay people.

Wait, so what's your position on the wedding cake bakers and photographer?

If the Benham's feel that they have a case, they are welcome to sue, as all public accommodations laws cover religion.
If Gay people feel that they have a case in the few areas where Gays are included in public accommodations laws, then they are welcome to sue as well.

Answer my question tom.

Tom's answer is obvious. There's a duel standard operating here, and his side is winning, so he's going to find any way possible to rationalize that duel standard and marginalize criticism. That would include never answering a question about it directly.

(05-17-2014 01:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 02:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 02:18 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  That's not all they did.

1) They advocated, publicly, banning Gay people in Charlotte from having any rights of protest, petition, speech, assembly, and association.

Here's the rest of the case against them

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/be...ious-right

isn't it amazing how people act when they only have the foxnews/daily caller version of events???

It was 10 years ago and it's an opinion. Seems those aren't ok unless you fit a certain criteria of a people.

ah so if you were racist 10 years ago then that means you should be let off the hook in the eyes of public perception

It worked for Robert Byrd with you liberals

That's going to leave a mark..

(05-17-2014 07:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as Sun Trust's decision I have two points. Its Sun Trust's listings and they can chose to market their property as they see fit. Besides, its not like they support those protections for Gay people.

Wait, so what's your position on the wedding cake bakers and photographer?

If the Benham's feel that they have a case, they are welcome to sue, as all public accommodations laws cover religion.

If Gay people feel that they have a case in the few areas where Gays are included in public accommodations laws, then they are welcome to sue as well.

Answer my question tom.

He can't. A lot of us would like to have double standards, but the left seems to get theirs and we don't and they don't want to admit it.

(05-17-2014 12:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As far as Sun Trust's decision I have two points. Its Sun Trust's listings and they can chose to market their property as they see fit. Besides, its not like they support those protections for Gay people.

Wait, so what's your position on the wedding cake bakers and photographer?

If the Benham's feel that they have a case, they are welcome to sue, as all public accommodations laws cover religion.

If Gay people feel that they have a case in the few areas where Gays are included in public accommodations laws, then they are welcome to sue as well.

Answer my question tom.

He can't. A lot of us would like to have double standards, but the left seems to get theirs and we don't and they don't want to admit it.

This is funny as hell .... talking about double standards, the Benham brothers are banned from prime time for living out their Christian faith and the American Picker gal carries on as a striper.





http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/...-american/

(05-28-2014 02:55 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Wait, so what's your position on the wedding cake bakers and photographer?

If the Benham's feel that they have a case, they are welcome to sue, as all public accommodations laws cover religion.

If Gay people feel that they have a case in the few areas where Gays are included in public accommodations laws, then they are welcome to sue as well.

Answer my question tom.

He can't. A lot of us would like to have double standards, but the left seems to get theirs and we don't and they don't want to admit it.

This is funny as hell .... talking about double standards, the Benham brothers are banned from prime time for living out their Christian faith and the American Picker gal carries on as a striper.

She's looked like hell the last 3 or 4 episodes. Some sort of Aunt Jemima look.