Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[Silhouette]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

LGBT Strategy: Use slippery slope by incremental shoehorning. All the while deny slippery slope exists. Ridicule anyone who brings up "the slippery slope" until they stop talking about it. Continue riding slippery slope to legal victory after legal victory.

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to have a bad case of denying the reality of legal precedent.

I have decades of legal precedent behind me. It is you who lacks legal footing



.

 

[mdk]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

LGBT Strategy: Use slippery slope by incremental shoehorning. All the while deny slippery slope exists. Ridicule anyone who brings up "the slippery slope" until they stop talking about it. Continue riding slippery slope to legal victory after legal victory.

Some of the that ridicule is well deserved. Like claiming how pastors will be thrown in jail for speaking out aganist gays and how churches will be forced to marry homos aganist their wishes. It is hair on fire bullshit used to frightened the people that already have an axe to grind when it comes to queers. People such as yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Yeah, just Kim Davis was thrown in jail for now...and Christians not technically sitting in a pew at church are getting forced to participate in gay weddings...yep, real 'hair on fire" bullshit..

You seem to have a bad case of denying the reality of legal precedent.

I have decades of legal precedent behind me. It is you who lacks legal footing

You better get a prescription for sedatives if a GOP candidate wins this year. Because there's a new Court a-comin' to town. And Obergefell is getting a second look. On that you can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it. Along with all the other judicial activist tripe that got through the lower courts while your boy Obama was cracking the whip.

*

vv How's that "trannies in women's bathroom" legal battle going for your cult these days?

were you aware that 13 states are suing the fed about it as we speak? Think you'll show a victory on men using women's showers too? ...lol.. Clarification is going to be your lethal enemy.

 

[mdk]

You seem to have a bad case of denying the reality of legal precedent.

I have decades of legal precedent behind me. It is you who lacks legal footing

You better get a prescription for sedatives if a GOP candidate wins this year. Because there's a new Court comin' to town brown. And Obergefell is getting a second look. On that you can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it. Along with all the other judicial activist tripe that got through the lower courts while your boy Obama was cracking the whip.

You made the same moronic claim when the GOP got control of Congress. They were going to impeach Kagan and Ginsberg and pass your child consideration amendment that would ban gay marriage. Will you ever tire of pissing in the wind?

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to have a bad case of denying the reality of legal precedent.

I have decades of legal precedent behind me. It is you who lacks legal footing

You better get a prescription for sedatives if a GOP candidate wins this year. Because there's a new Court comin' to town brown. And Obergefell is getting a second look. On that you can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it. Along with all the other judicial activist tripe that got through the lower courts while your boy Obama was cracking the whip.

Unfortunately, Trump is the candidate that was chosen

It will mean Hillary gets to name at least three judges and ensures a liberal court for the next twenty years

That means Roe v Wade is saved, Obergfell is saved, Heller s scaled back, Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are gone and capital punishment will be abolished

 

[mdk]

^^ Yeah, just Kim Davis was thrown in jail for now...and Christians not technically sitting in a pew at church are getting forced to participate in gay weddings...yep, real 'hair on fire" bullshit..

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

 

[Silhouette]

Unfortunately, Trump is the candidate that was chosen

Unfortunately, Trump is the candidate that was chosen

 

[Silhouette]

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

Can you point me to the place in the US Constitution where it says "Freedom of Church"? Or does it in fact guarantee each citizen themself freedom of religion? Is religion a building and a dude with a little white blip in his black collar? Or is it the parishioners themselves and the Word they follow in their individual hearts?

 

[mdk]

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

Can you point me to the place in the US Constitution where it says "Freedom of Church"? Or does it in fact guarantee each citizen themself freedom of religion? Is religion a building and a dude with a little white blip in his black collar? Or is it the parishioners themselves and the Word they follow in their individual hearts?

People are not churches, dip shit. Not in any state. Can you point to me where ones faith allows them to ignore the law at will? Such a standard doesn't exist which is why her appeal was denied all the way to the top. If Kim Davis went to jail being a Christian than so did Warren Jeffs. Which is silly. Davis can't use her government office to impose her faith on her fellow citizens. If she has a problem than she is free to find a different line of work.

 

[mdk]

Sorry I can't approve your liquor license. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your child public school admittance. She was born out of wedlock. Doing so would violate my beleifs.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs?

Get the point yet, Silhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry I can't approve your liquor license. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your child public school admittance. She was born out of wedlock. Doing so would violate my beleifs.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs?

Get the point yet, Silhouette?

Sorry, I can't approve your license, please go see the other clerk at the next window.

The child born out of wedlock has nothing to do with the out of wedlock act itself. "Sorry, I can't hold the the flashlight while you two unmarried people get it on out here in the dirt". That would be reasonable objection.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit, go see the clerk at the next window.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

Nothing is easy with you is it?

A simple transaction. Rent the place and gays get the same terms as everyone else

Dear rightwinger
1. You are the one labeling the persons as gays.
I did not.
2. I am separating the business relations
from the activities but you are not.

Don't blame your labels on me that you keep imposing.

READ what I said:
I said I would rent the place to the customers (you called them gays making a distinction)

I said I would let the services and ACTIVITIES be conducted
by people who CONSENT to those and not force them on anyone unwillfully.

So that is separating the ACTIVITIES from customers.

READ what I wrote.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry I can't approve your liquor license. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your child public school admittance. She was born out of wedlock. Doing so would violate my beleifs.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs?

Get the point yet, Silhouette?

Dear mdk YES this is what Libertarians and other Constitutionalists
ARE saying why govt is not designed for SOCIAL legislation.

1. If we all CONSENT for convenience, we can slide and accept some conflicts.
People used to be okay with God in schools and on money and in pledges.
That used to slide past objections, but technically it was always crossing the line with religion.

2. it's when we do NOT consent YES we do have the right to contest and change laws
and if enough people CONSENT to the changes, YES, we can do that.

So that's why it's important to resolve conflicts
and make policies by consent of the governed.

Otherwise, anyone could go around contesting everything and we couldn't justify half the laws pushed by federal govt. The only reason the Federal Reserve, IRS, CPS and other "unconstitutional" extensions of govt operate is that we CONSENT to them. The minute people agree on what to change them to, boom, we could challenge and change them.
But if we don't all agree, they continue to operate for convenience, constitutional or not.

That's why Constitutionalists are saying to limit govt to just what is in the Constitution.
And manage all these other "social policies" locally where people CONSENT to local rules.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

You're deep in the psychobabble..

OK NYcarbineer and rightwinger
Now there's two of you who don't want to read or listen to
the DUE PROCESS it takes to resolve conflicts over sensitive policies.

What makes you think the issue of homosexuality is EASY???
What about transgender issues. How is any of this NOT complex?

Do you realize that there are two beliefs competing with each other
and NEITHER is proven or disproven about homosexual and/or transgender orientation:
1. one extreme believes it is unnatural, it is a behavior and a choice
so it is NOT protected as "behavior" (as race is which is not a behavioral choice)
and is NOT the same as gender determined by birth/genetics that is NOT a choice
as "transgender identity" is believed to be choice of BEHAVIOR

Some even believe it is a disorder or mental illness
so if it is treated as a disability, what are the rules for documenting and confirming real cases

2. one extreme believes it is natural, it is NOT a choice
and should not be discriminated against similar to race

It should NOT be assumed to be a mental illness and subjected to correction
and some extremes REJECT any notion or cases of people healing of conditions
caused by abuse and changing their orientation.

And third mixed level of some of both
3. it is not necessarily a choice, but it can change in some cases where it is either unnaturally caused by abuse, or more behavioral and environmental,
or it may be spiritually determined and is thus protected like someone's identity of faith.

Do you REALLY believe you can resolve this without addressing
1 and 2 above (I am more like 3 in trying to accommodate 1 and 2 equally
since neither is proven or disproven but remain faith based and people's
rights to believe without fear of punishment or discrimination by govt)

NYcarbineer I already bet 10 million to rightwinger
that mediation and talking out these differences
ARE necessary to resolve these issues CONSTITUTIONALLY.

Do you want to help your buddy raise 10 million for charity
and make a bet on this?

if you two "think" you can end this debate simply by majority rule
and "refusing to consider any objections or discussion as psychobabble"
then fine! I bet you 10 million you cannot resolve it that way.

I am seeking mediation to find where people would agree how
to handle differences in BELIEFS.

I also believe it is possible to reach agreement with prolife Christians
that if they can get back their rights to free speech and freedom of religion
with references to God prayer creation and abstinence taught in public schools,
if they can push their right to life beliefs through govt the same as LGBT pushes their agenda,
they might agree to Equality laws that INCLUDE their beliefs equally as LGBT beliefs
that can't be proven or disproven either.

10 million says that this issue can be resolved by mediation and redressing all grievances,
instead of DENYING DUE PROCESS by censoring and bullying the other side.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Bullshit, if person owns a business, he can smoke all the cigarettes he wants in his business. Just not in the food prep or dining area (assuming the food industry)

So now we have another example of where your rights as an individual are not the same as your rights as a business owner
You are free to smoke in your home....not free to smoke in a public business
See how it works?

Business is not treated the same as an individual

Okay rightwinger so this goes both ways

Individuals have the right to put their LGBT beliefs about orientation and transgender identity
above someone else's beliefs that these are behavioral choices and not genetic like race.

Why are you saying Govt has the right to endorse the LGBT beliefs that are faith based and to penalize people for not changing or complying with these beliefs? When neither side is proven by science.

I disagree

I don't think they are putting their LGBT orientation above someone else's religious beliefs

They are merely testing who they are and expecting equal treatment under our laws

rightwinger OK and I agree that if they get their way this opens the door for
* right to life believers to sue to impose their beliefs and infringe on anyone else affected
In order not to discriminate against women by only banning abortion, instead sex will be
banned and considered rape if there is unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children
or unwanted abortion: those will all be grounds for rape charges against the man,
because of the beliefs of a few people
* right to spiritual healing to cut prison and health care costs to be imposed on everyone
(because otherwise it is costing taxpayers more money when people aren't cured of cancer,
drug addiction, mental illness, and especially schizophrenia and criminal illness.)
In order not to discriminate or target any one group. ALL people would be required to
undergo spiritual healing because this is the belief of "some people" who are inconvenienced by being forced to pay taxes into prisons and mental hospitals in a revolving door system that isn't curing the problems.
* right to impose beliefs on no sex outside of marriage or without signed consent forms
because this is also costing taxpayer money on rape cases that can't be proven if they were consensual or not
and other problems that taxpayers don't want to keep paying for

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

And that is their answer to everything. "Oh shut up". Because their view of the world fails, yet they can never change their view.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear NYcarbineer and rightwinger

Do you two seriously not acknowledge the difference
in LEGAL TREATMENT of orientation as a "behavior
that is not protected from discrimination"

Do you understand that this is similar to the
LEGAL TREATMENT of human rights as
beginning at BIRTH and not on "faith based"
standards of people FEELING or BELIEVING
that human life and rights begin BEFORE birth on
some internal level not proven by science.

At this point, if this is how liberals think,
I am guessing the right to life should use this political support of the
Equality Act to push for THEIR beliefs to be protected by govt at all costs.
And anything less would be discrimination against their creeds vs the LGBT.

It seems the liberals want so much to establish the LGBT rights
at all costs, the advocates would even sacrifice prochoice
principles as was already overridden by the ACA mandates.
Now it's happening again, and advocates don't care about the implications
of women and girls facing harassment or security issues.
Only the LGBT matter in order to upset and get back at Christians for rejecting them.

Political agenda is clearly more important, so by that standard,
all group's political agenda can be rammed through govt, faith based or not,
regardless of the consent or consequences to others affected.

 

[rightwinger]

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

Nothing is easy with you is it?

A simple transaction. Rent the place and gays get the same terms as everyone else

Dear rightwinger
1. You are the one labeling the persons as gays.
I did not.
2. I am separating the business relations
from the activities but you are not.

Don't blame your labels on me that you keep imposing.

READ what I said:
I said I would rent the place to the customers (you called them gays making a distinction)

I said I would let the services and ACTIVITIES be conducted
by people who CONSENT to those and not force them on anyone unwillfully.

So that is separating the ACTIVITIES from customers.

READ what I wrote.

So...you own a business

You only let the services you conduct be done by those who consent to serve (you are a very generous employer)
You live in a Bible Belt city and three quarters of your employees refuse to be involved in a gay wedding.

What do you do?

 

[emilynghiem]

What if your religion does not allow you to work? Now what?

Dear initforme then you rely on other people who share your beliefs and support you.
Many people agree to support a monk or nun who does not work in the secular world.
They may provide teaching or other services, or whatever their followers agree is earning their keep.

Many people would support grants scholarships internships or work-study jobs for students in training under the agreement they will contribute and pay back the investment later.

But we do NOT see monks or nuns expecting other denominations to pay for them.
Why can't we set up school systems where people agree which job or school applicants, including inmates, are good candidates to sponsor for education and job training?

Match every person to a community or program that fits their potential and all can succeed in the longrun. If people are disabled, or so mentally or criminally impaired they cannot operate, then jobs and internships can be supported for people to manage and supervise care for these types. And that is part of the campus system for sustainable education, jobs and services. why can't this be done by voluntary donations investments and participation, as in universities where alumni and supporters choose which programs to fund?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

Nothing is easy with you is it?

A simple transaction. Rent the place and gays get the same terms as everyone else

Dear rightwinger
1. You are the one labeling the persons as gays.
I did not.
2. I am separating the business relations
from the activities but you are not.

Don't blame your labels on me that you keep imposing.

READ what I said:
I said I would rent the place to the customers (you called them gays making a distinction)

I said I would let the services and ACTIVITIES be conducted
by people who CONSENT to those and not force them on anyone unwillfully.

So that is separating the ACTIVITIES from customers.

READ what I wrote.

So...you own a business

You only let the services you conduct be done by those who consent to serve (you are a very generous employer)
You live in a Bible Belt city and three quarters of your employees refuse to be involved in a gay wedding.

What do you do?

Dear rightwinger
1. I would ask fellow churches in other areas like Houston to help. My friend Ray Hill who is a gay atheist knows tons of people who would love the contract work. My friend Jeff Smith is setting up a staffing network for transgender and LGBT friendly temps in order to give them job opportunities and chance to prove and improve their skills.

rightwinger there are TONS of ex inmates who can't find work.
I would go through church groups to screen which ones they can bring on with proper supervision so
no guests feel uncomfortable with ex gang members, ex drug dealers, or ex prostitution sex workers
including LGBT youth abused on the streets because they couldn't find jobs except selling themselves to traffickers

2. Again, if we can't resolve these issues in time,
the mediation/arbitration waiver we signed up front
would give us the option of either arbitrating or foregoing the contract
to prevent legal expenses and actions

I happen to have lots of friends in Houston trying to place jobs for LGBT and people with records
who are going through church groups, nonprofits, even the city to find work.

There are plenty of people we could hire, and just ask help to set up a way to make this work.

I'm glad you brought this up rightwinger
since mediation and matching clients to service providers is such a sensitive matter,
it DOES take time to resolve all the details. I better contact Jeff again to speed up setting up the network he envisions. We should offer these job placement services on a national level so nobody gets stuck in the position you describe. Many people would love to work those jobs!