Christian B&B refuses to back down to homosexual terrorism

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, I don't recognize protected classes. The distinction is unconstitutional, and the laws that establish it are not valid.

State Public Accommodation laws fall under the States power to regulate intra-state commerce under the 10th Amendment.

You have a problem with State powers under the Constitution?


>>>>

 

[Yarddog]

The gay couple should go on a great honeymoon with the money they won.

This bed and breakfast has been flooded out 3 times and half their trees have been lost to strong winds? Maybe somebody is trying to send them a message...

If they wanted to win money, they should have had their Union in Las Vegas. The B&B was not preventing them from having a wedding, and they are not on public property. Because weddings are often regarded as a religious ceremony, both sides need to be considered. Its not the same thing as discriminating against someone based on race, Its that the B&B owners may feel that they are being forced into an action against their own religion.

They didn't want to win money. They wanted to get married.

Sure, but they won 80 K, whats that about? they were not prevented from being married, only from being married on someone else's private property. I guarantee if they called around they would have found a B&B who would have welcomed them with open arms. What we call victims in this country is ridiculous. We have become a very soft nation, when there are real victims in the world to be cared for. A fine or penalty is one thing, but 80K sounds like an attorney making a lot of money.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The gay couple should go on a great honeymoon with the money they won.

This bed and breakfast has been flooded out 3 times and half their trees have been lost to strong winds? Maybe somebody is trying to send them a message...

If they wanted to win money, they should have had their Union in Las Vegas. The B&B was not preventing them from having a wedding, and they are not on public property. Because weddings are often regarded as a religious ceremony, both sides need to be considered. Its not the same thing as discriminating against someone based on race, Its that the B&B owners may feel that they are being forced into an action against their own religion.

They didn't want to win money. They wanted to get married.

Sure, but they won 80 K, whats that about? they were not prevented from being married, only from being married on someone else's private property. I guarantee if they called around they would have found a B&B who would have welcomed them with open arms. What we call victims in this country is ridiculous. We have become a very soft nation, when there are real victims in the world to be cared for. A fine or penalty is one thing, but 80K sounds like an attorney making a lot of money.

Yeah the attorney made most of the money. Oh well lesson to the owners here is don't be a dick. Maybe if they hadn't sent follow up e-mails quoting the bible and condemning the couple they wouldn't have had a lawsuit.

 

[SwimExpert]

-------------------------- in a FREE country it should be his RIGHT to discriminate Bodecea .

I see no reason for a doctor to have a right to discriminate based on a patient's religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

THIS is where an armed militia should make a stand, protecting the rights of business owners from terrorists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Oregon couple, Sweet Cakes I think, got a 120k fine. I'm beginning to think this is more a money making scheme than anything else.

It's economic terrorism as part of the democratic party's war on Christianity.

 

[Yarddog]

The gay couple should go on a great honeymoon with the money they won.

This bed and breakfast has been flooded out 3 times and half their trees have been lost to strong winds? Maybe somebody is trying to send them a message...

If they wanted to win money, they should have had their Union in Las Vegas. The B&B was not preventing them from having a wedding, and they are not on public property. Because weddings are often regarded as a religious ceremony, both sides need to be considered. Its not the same thing as discriminating against someone based on race, Its that the B&B owners may feel that they are being forced into an action against their own religion.

They didn't want to win money. They wanted to get married.

Sure, but they won 80 K, whats that about? they were not prevented from being married, only from being married on someone else's private property. I guarantee if they called around they would have found a B&B who would have welcomed them with open arms. What we call victims in this country is ridiculous. We have become a very soft nation, when there are real victims in the world to be cared for. A fine or penalty is one thing, but 80K sounds like an attorney making a lot of money.

Yeah the attorney made most of the money. Oh well lesson to the owners here is don't be a dick. Maybe if they hadn't sent follow up e-mails quoting the bible and condemning the couple they wouldn't have had a lawsuit.

Well, its true they over did it with the emails and I'm sure not for hurting peoples feelings, but I think the monetary amount seems to be pretty steep. It goes beyond the individual issue, these types of lawsuits are destroying businesses and that should not be the purpose of a penalty or fine. If your a politician you can say all kind of damning things, or give an errant tweet , then turn around and say you "mis spoke" or "made a mistake" then they can get off scott free, but if your a regular citizen who maybe saved a good part of your life to start a business or took out a loan , you can see it all erased by a 20 second phone conversation. If people cant see the problem with that were pretty much done, like I said , become a very weak, overly sensitive nation that lets Attorneys just roll them over, of course if you are on the side of a particular cause you may be cheering but it doesnt make it right.

 

[koshergrl]

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.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Clergy being largely exempt from PA laws is not helpful to the distinction, and sloppily created hypotheticals with false equivalencies are not helpful.

The distinction is gay is a protected class, and Nazi is not. A gay baker can refuse to serve a Nazi, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally. Likewise, a straight baker may refuse Nazis, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally.

Sorry, I don't recognize protected classes. The distinction is unconstitutional, and the laws that establish it are not valid.

Well, I like neither PA laws nor the civil rights act proscriptions on private contracts .... but like taxes and the ()U()Piofdjaue89ng Bah-stahn Red Sox, they exist.

Are they unconstitutional? If they are, then you can choose not to comply.

 

[SwimExpert]

Soiled? Soiled by what?

Bodily fluids, of course. Everyone knows that gay people are insatiably horny and prone to spontaneous intercourse anywhere they happen to be standing.

 

[SwimExpert]

All this ridiculous garbage is about sucking the people dry.

Yes, that's exactly what gay marriage is about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

The far right gay mafia? Parakeets, henry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

If a wedding is performed as part of a for profit business, what do you think, gay girl?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Clergy being largely exempt from PA laws is not helpful to the distinction, and sloppily created hypotheticals with false equivalencies are not helpful.

The distinction is gay is a protected class, and Nazi is not. A gay baker can refuse to serve a Nazi, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally. Likewise, a straight baker may refuse Nazis, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally.

Sorry, I don't recognize protected classes. The distinction is unconstitutional, and the laws that establish it are not valid.

The law does not provide a "kg does not recognize" this or that or whatever.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bodily fluids, of course. Everyone knows that gay people are insatiably horny and prone to spontaneous intercourse anywhere they happen to be standing.

That's just you, not all gay people.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.


>>>>

So you admit that a wedding is a religious ceremony. Therefore, bakers can refuse to create cakes for them, if they feel that to do so would be an act of sacrilege. We agree.

Clergy being largely exempt from PA laws is not helpful to the distinction, and sloppily created hypotheticals with false equivalencies are not helpful.

The distinction is gay is a protected class, and Nazi is not. A gay baker can refuse to serve a Nazi, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally. Likewise, a straight baker may refuse Nazis, so long as he refused gay and straight Nazis equally.

Sorry, I don't recognize protected classes. The distinction is unconstitutional, and the laws that establish it are not valid.

The law does not provide a "kg does not recognize" this or that or whatever.

I got it! Make a black Jewish baker make a cake for the gay wedding of KKK white supremacist and Jihadist Muslim. I'd avoid the cake if you go to that wedding.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Soiled? Soiled by what?

Bodily fluids, of course. Everyone knows that gay people are insatiably horny and prone to spontaneous intercourse anywhere they happen to be standing.

Actually, I heard that too. I think it was on Oprah.

 

[Granny]

This is why people rebel - SOME gays and lesbians are going to FORCE themselves on others come hell or high water. All they have to do is try another bakery. Better yet, why don't they set up their own LGBT bakeries and the problem is solved. Everybody's happy.

I would consider that an act of terrorism. Gay dude is coming...run..he may sue because you didn't comply with his demand that you accept him.

You think what I said is an act of terrorism? I hope not! I just think if there's a reasonable alternate solution to any problem, it should be taken.

 

[pismoe]

-------------------------- in a FREE country it should be his RIGHT to discriminate Bodecea .

I see no reason for a doctor to have a right to discriminate based on a patient's religion.

-------------------------------- in a FREE country any reason is acceptable SwimExpert .

 

[pismoe]

Soiled? Soiled by what?

Bodily fluids, of course. Everyone knows that gay people are insatiably horny and prone to spontaneous intercourse anywhere they happen to be standing.

--------------------------- got nothing to do with anything like that as your mind goes wild , some people think that homo acts are UNCLEAN SwimExpert .

 

[Montrovant]

-------------------------- in a FREE country it should be his RIGHT to discriminate Bodecea .

I see no reason for a doctor to have a right to discriminate based on a patient's religion.

-------------------------------- in a FREE country any reason is acceptable SwimExpert .

Do you want freedom or anarchy? Just how are you defining free in this instance?

I actually agree with the idea of private businesses being allowed to discriminate, but the question is how it works in practice. The only real history we have to go by would indicate allowing businesses to discriminate against whomever they choose would be a bad thing.