Christian B&B refuses to back down to homosexual terrorism

[g5000]

I agree. The gay billboard maker in your example must provide the Christian the billboard he wants. And the law agrees with me. You are inventing legal discrimination which does not exist.

Well I think the scenario should be legally tested. Agree?

Go for it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Christian B&B isn’t backing down despite $80,000 fine for refusing to host gay wedding

Good don't back down to the economic terrorist acts. Stand strong.

But they would be happy to host Rush Limbaugh's fifth wedding should that day ever arrive.

Which should be their right.

Yes, everyone has a right to be a raging hypocrite who selectively uses the Bible to justify their bigotry.

They do not have a right to force their hypocrisy and bigotry on others.

Silly position.

If you're gay and refused service as such were you FORCED to patronize that business by the business owner to begin with? The only one try to force anything on anyone in this scenario is the gay couple.

Ignorant position.

If you are gay and refused service, you were forced to leave a public accommodation.

See the stupidity and ignorance of your argument with, "If you're black and refused service as such were you FORCED to patronize that business by the business owner to begin with?"

And that's where you loons always go wrong. Gay isn't a race. Not boarding a black couple isn't the same as not boarding a gay couple. There's no sin in the Bible about being black. Homosexuality is. You may not agree but you cannot define people's morality for them.

 

[g5000]

But they would be happy to host Rush Limbaugh's fifth wedding should that day ever arrive.

Which should be their right.

Yes, everyone has a right to be a raging hypocrite who selectively uses the Bible to justify their bigotry.

They do not have a right to force their hypocrisy and bigotry on others.

Silly position.

If you're gay and refused service as such were you FORCED to patronize that business by the business owner to begin with? The only one try to force anything on anyone in this scenario is the gay couple.

Ignorant position.

If you are gay and refused service, you were forced to leave a public accommodation.

See the stupidity and ignorance of your argument with, "If you're black and refused service as such were you FORCED to patronize that business by the business owner to begin with?"

And that's where you loons always go wrong. Gay isn't a race. Not boarding a black couple isn't the same as not boarding a gay couple. There's no sin in the Bible about being black. Homosexuality is. You may not agree but you cannot define people's morality for them.

Spend some time in the Deep South and they will teach you all the parts of the bible which justify segregation and slavery.

The abuses of the bible to justify bigotry against gays is nothing new under the sun. In fact, it's old hat. The same strain of bigots used to use the same bible to justify segregation.

And a hotel room rental and some cake have fuck-all to do with religion. You bigots are making a huge tactical mistake. By opening the door to discrimination, you are self-fulfilling your "War on Christianity", because you are handing the "right" to ban Christians from hotels to your political enemies.

As I was telling Silhouette, this IS a two way street. This is why we protect the rights of others, because we are simultaneously protecting our own.

 

[g5000]

Speaking of tactical mistakes, here is a lesson to learn from the ruin of religion in Europe:


The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more. I do not know what could restore the Christian church of Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be for human policy to leave to faith the full exercise of the strength which it still retains.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17



This is EXACTLY what has happened in America in the modern age. We are experiencing the same mortal wounds to religion which France experienced 200 years ago.

Christianity has become "intimately united to the powers of the earth". The unbelievers of America "attack the Christians as their political opponents...they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief."

The very term Religious Right is one which is religion (Religious) and politics (Right) being intimately united.

The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity. As goes the Right as it has become hijacked by maniacs, so goes the religion which bound itself to it down with it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What is the proper fine for a Black owned bar refusing to host a mixer intended to raise money for David Duke presidential campaign? Is it more or less than the fine for a hunting lodge denying to host the Christmas party of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? I wonder about these things.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If a company doesn't want my business I'll take it elsewhere. Why this concept is so difficult for others is beyond me. And yes, I have been mistreated at a business before. A car dealership. I left, went to a competitor, bought a different 40k truck, drove back to the first one, asked for the manager, showed him my new ride, gave him the finger as I drove away smiling.

Lefties & fags, ball up in a corner & cry....

 

[Silhouette]

A billboard saying God hates Fags or whatever has nothing to do with any religion.

Actually, it does. We might not like that religion, but it's a legitimate creed. When it comes to free speech and religion, we must not err on the side of caution. That leads to the tyranny of censorship.

My scenario didn't say "God hates fags". My scenario was where a Christian walked in, on purpose, to a gay billboard designer and asked him to print a billboard for many major highways that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". God doesn't hate sinners. And you'd know that if you knew a whit about Christianity. And, all Christians are sinners. God hates the sin itself. It could even say that in subprint on the billboard.

What is the proper fine for a Black owned bar refusing to host a mixer intended to raise money for David Duke presidential campaign? Is it more or less than the fine for a hunting lodge denying to host the Christmas party of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? I wonder about these things.

Race has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or religious-orientation. Two completely different legal kettles of fish.

For instance, the Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman. And if you argue it did, then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

 

[OldLady]

Iceweasel and Odium on the same team: priceless.

And mindless.

 

[g5000]

A billboard saying God hates Fags or whatever has nothing to do with any religion.

Actually, it does. We might not like that religion, but it's a legitimate creed. When it comes to free speech and religion, we must not err on the side of caution. That leads to the tyranny of censorship.

My scenario didn't say "God hates fags". My scenario was where a Christian walked in, on purpose, to a gay billboard designer and asked him to print a billboard for many major highways that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". God doesn't hate sinners. And you'd know that if you knew a whit about Christianity. And, all Christians are sinners. God hates the sin itself. It could even say that in subprint on the billboard.

I did not invent the "God Hates Fags" scenario. bendog did.

And I don't know how you spun off into some weird thing about me not knowing God doesn't hate sinners from that line of conversation I was having with him. That's bizarre.

You apparently have a comprehension problem. I don't care if the sign says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" or if it says "God Hates Fags", I believe a gay billboard printer should not be allowed to deny service in either situation.

 

[g5000]

Race has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or religious-orientation. Two completely different legal kettles of fish.

For instance, the Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman. And if you argue it did, then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

You should read the Loving decision before speaking about it.

In that decision, the Court said a discriminatory statute must "serve a rational purpose".

They also pointed out the Equal Protection Clause doesn't protect interracial marriages on a racial basis, but on "whether there was any rational basis" to treat them differently

And that is exactly why the Loving decision applies to gay marriages. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't protect gay marriages on a sexual orientation basis, but on whether there is any rational basis to treat them differently.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't care if the sign says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" or if it says "God Hates Fags", I believe a gay billboard printer should not be allowed to deny service in either situation.

Well if you really want to parse out hate speech though, the word "hates" might be seen as an instigation of others to attack a certain subsection or demographic. So I'd even take umbrage to a billboard that says "God Hates Fags". 1. Because it isn't true. God hates the sin, not the sinners. and 2. Because it includes an urging for others to hate a demographic by example.

The billboard "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" is a PERFECT benign scenario because it is free speech, not "hate" free speech and it simply says the truth of a closely held Christian tenet without the need for hating anyone....instead is urges the rejection of a behavior. And if a Christian forced a gay person to print such a highway billboard sign, I'll bet you dollars to donuts the gay guy would get really defensive and refuse to do it....out of principle...which is exactly the same defense Christians cite: principle.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What is the proper fine for a Black owned bar refusing to host a mixer intended to raise money for David Duke presidential campaign? Is it more or less than the fine for a hunting lodge denying to host the Christmas party of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? I wonder about these things.

Political views are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.

There wouldn't be a find.

Glad to help you not have to wonder anymore.

You are welcome.


>>>>

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

 

[koshergrl]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

According to the fag Gestapo....no. Not if the nazis want a Jewish ceremony.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

Yes.

The performance of religious services by members of the Clergy are not covered under Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

So can a Rabbi refuse to officiate the wedding of two Nazis? Thanks for your help.

According to the fag Gestapo....no. Not if the nazis want a Jewish ceremony.

Who said that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the Clergy is performing the ceremony as part of a public business, a wedding chapel for profit, for instance, may run into a problem.

 

[Seawytch]

But they would be happy to host Rush Limbaugh's fifth wedding should that day ever arrive.

Which should be their right.

Yes, everyone has a right to be a raging hypocrite who selectively uses the Bible to justify their bigotry.

They do not have a right to force their hypocrisy and bigotry on others.

Silly position.

If you're gay and refused service as such were you FORCED to patronize that business by the business owner to begin with? The only one try to force anything on anyone in this scenario is the gay couple.

Ignorant position.

If you are gay and refused service, you were forced to leave a public accommodation.

See the stupidity and ignorance of your argument with, "If you're black and refused service as such were you FORCED to patronize that business by the business owner to begin with?"

And that's where you loons always go wrong. Gay isn't a race. Not boarding a black couple isn't the same as not boarding a gay couple. There's no sin in the Bible about being black. Homosexuality is. You may not agree but you cannot define people's morality for them.

Segregationists and anti miscegenationists use the same bible the anti gay bigots use and believe in it just as strongly. Why aren't those bigots "rights" as protected as the anti gay ones?

 

[bendog]

A billboard saying God hates Fags or whatever has nothing to do with any religion.

Actually, it does. We might not like that religion, but it's a legitimate creed. When it comes to free speech and religion, we must not err on the side of caution. That leads to the tyranny of censorship.

My scenario didn't say "God hates fags". My scenario was where a Christian walked in, on purpose, to a gay billboard designer and asked him to print a billboard for many major highways that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". God doesn't hate sinners. And you'd know that if you knew a whit about Christianity. And, all Christians are sinners. God hates the sin itself. It could even say that in subprint on the billboard.

What is the proper fine for a Black owned bar refusing to host a mixer intended to raise money for David Duke presidential campaign? Is it more or less than the fine for a hunting lodge denying to host the Christmas party of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? I wonder about these things.

Race has nothing to do with sexual-orientation or religious-orientation. Two completely different legal kettles of fish.

For instance, the Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman. And if you argue it did, then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

The distinction is Sil, that in your hypothetical of a sign "homosexuality is a sin against God" there is a political message. And it is certainly not Christian dogma. The gay sign maker who chooses not to make the sign is not refusing to make all signs for Christians.

And, it's rather an absurd hypo. Suppose there's a PA law forbidding discrimination on sexual orientation. Assume you have a Christian baker who believes he is condoning sin in baking a wedding cake for gays. You would have a valid comparison if you had a gay baker who said he only bakes wedding cakes for gay weddings, and notstraight weddings.

 

[HenryBHough]

Yeah, it will back down when the go-fund me monies are confiscated as a contempt of court action.

Birds of a feather?

Bright, gay plumage?