Another Win For Equality

[Nosmo King]

Point 1: how are business owners being fair while they discriminate?

Point 2: how are these discriminating business owners NOT forcing their morality on others?

Point 3: discrimination is repression. Repression by merchantile impermatur.

Point 1. Not your concern. F$*k off.

Point 2. Not your concern, and they can go easily to someone else who wants to work with them. Again, F%$k off.

Point 3. They can easily end the repression by going to another business. Finally, F&%k off.

And there's a water fountain right beside the water fountain we don't want you drinking from. There's a motel three miles down the road because we don't want you staying here.

Separate but equal? They are never equal. And the 'go someplace else' argument is an argument for an apartheid system.

Those were examples of government mandated discrimination, which was systemic and designed to keep a whole group of people in economic and political serfdom. The government's response in that situation was right.

A gay couple having to spend 10 minutes finding another baker or catering hall, or photographer does not even come close to that standard.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Nope, wrong. You don't have a real response, so you have to go with a general non-response.

As there is no clear and present danger posed by a same sex wedding, and as there is no real benefit to society from discriminating against same sex couples, we must then assume that discriminating against them is nothing more that good old fashioned Gay bashing just for kicks.

These pious merchants, so in fear of the status of their immortal souls for doing business with sinners, do not apply the same ecclesiastical standards to all their clients. Surly some unsavory customers have been serviced at their businesses. But do these merchants care? Nope! Money is money, except when it comes from the account of a homosexual. What gall! What hypocrisy!

Do these merchants morally vet each and every customer to assure their place in heaven? A mafia princess can have her grand soiree at their hall. An adulterer, someone who fails to honor their father and mother, someone who covets his neighbor's wife, someone who fails to recognize the Sabbath and keep it holy (all sins forbidden specifically in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality).

There is no benefit to discriminating against homosexuals. It violates Public Accommodation laws, it is not a primary tenet of the Christian faith, and it is not an attack on Christianity by the homosexual community who come to these .vendors as paying customers..



Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Is anyone else insulted by the use of a beautiful and inclusive faith to a wicked end?

 

[bodecea]

What irony.

No irony at all.

Point 1: how are business owners being fair while they discriminate?

Point 2: how are these discriminating business owners NOT forcing their morality on others?

Point 3: discrimination is repression. Repression by merchantile impermatur.

Point 1. Not your concern. F$*k off.

Point 2. Not your concern, and they can go easily to someone else who wants to work with them. Again, F%$k off.

Point 3. They can easily end the repression by going to another business. Finally, F&%k off.

And there's a water fountain right beside the water fountain we don't want you drinking from. There's a motel three miles down the road because we don't want you staying here.

Separate but equal? They are never equal. And the 'go someplace else' argument is an argument for an apartheid system.

Those were examples of government mandated discrimination, which was systemic and designed to keep a whole group of people in economic and political serfdom. The government's response in that situation was right.

A gay couple having to spend 10 minutes finding another baker or catering hall, or photographer does not even come close to that standard.

You are complaining about PA laws.....so, what have you been actively doing to get rid of them? (whining on the Internet doesn't count as "actively")

 

[Hutch Starskey]

]

They broke the law. They chose to close up shop rather than play by the rules. They should take personal responsibility.

They broke a law that violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution?

The Juden should resist through any and all means against your Kristal Nacht.

That's your rather inept interpretation. Thankfully we have much smarter people making the actual determinations.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's your rather inept interpretation. Thankfully we have much smarter people making the actual determinations.

Seig Heil.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Suffering by their own choices and design.

yes, because someone having to spend 15 minutes finding another vendor merits ruining the offending party via government fiat.

The offending party ruined themselves. It was their own choice not to host weddings any longer. They could have paid the fine and moved foreward with their business.

Paid the fine every time? It isn't the fine, its the concept that government can force people to do something they don't want over something as trivial as this.

They broke the law. They chose to close up shop rather than play by the rules. They should take personal responsibility.

The law is stupid and wrong.

You have something in common then.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Like it or lump it, Iowa's current public accommodation laws include gays. There doesn't seem to be a big push to remove gays from PA laws in Iowa either.

I wish PA laws would be scrapped for the most part but sadly the public, the courts, and the legislators have very little interest in doing so.

The three Iowa justices who forced gay marriage on Iowans were voted out of office. Want to put PA laws up to a vote here in Iowa?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have something in common then.

Any law which directly violates the United States Constitution or Amendments therein, is not valid. Public Accommodation laws which force individuals to act against religious principles are in gross violation of the 1st Amendment and prima facie unconstitutional. The left is engaged in a war to end all civil rights, the use of the Queer Nazis and the long Kristal Nacht is intended to crush the 1st Amendment. Because these laws violate the fundamental law of the land and do not uphold the Constitution, the people are under no obligation to obey said laws.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Like it or lump it, Iowa's current public accommodation laws include gays. There doesn't seem to be a big push to remove gays from PA laws in Iowa either.

I wish PA laws would be scrapped for the most part but sadly the public, the courts, and the legislators have very little interest in doing so.

The three Iowa justices who forced gay marriage on Iowans were voted out of office. Want to put PA laws up to a vote here in Iowa?

3?

Aren't there 7 Judges on the Iowa Supreme Court? And wasn't it a unanimous decision?

3 lost their retention in the 2010 retention election.

The 2012 effort to remove Justice Wiggins failed and he was retained.

That accounts for 4 of 7, what's up with the other three? (IIRC there were no ISC Justices on the ballot in 2014.)


>>>>