Disney threatens to stop filming in Georgia if anti-gay bill becomes law

[WinterBorn]

None of those examples is relevant to the topic. No one is making Christians join in gay marriages. They simply are stopping them from discriminating.

That is a lie. Catering, photographing, and conducting the service are all acts of taking part in the ceremony.

Bullshit. They are paid to provide a service. The have a business that is open to the public. It is illegal to discriminate when you operate such a business.

It is funny that these "Christian" business owners don't object to selling their goods and services to Jews, Muslims, Pagans and atheists.

If catering, photographing and conducting a marriage service are not taking part in the service as you claim, then the service does not require their presence.

If a Hindu photographer does not want to take on a gig at a butcher shop, that is his Constitutuional and moral right.

First of all, conducting a marriage service, as a member of the clergy, is obviously an issue. Catering and photographing is not. A business is not allowed to discriminate. Just as a photographer cannot discriminate because the potential customer is of a different religion. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

Why must a Christian florist provide flowers for an atheist's wedding or a pagan wedding, but they get a pass on discrimination if it is a same sex wedding?

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That is a lie. Catering, photographing, and conducting the service are all acts of taking part in the ceremony.

Bullshit. They are paid to provide a service. The have a business that is open to the public. It is illegal to discriminate when you operate such a business.

It is funny that these "Christian" business owners don't object to selling their goods and services to Jews, Muslims, Pagans and atheists.

If catering, photographing and conducting a marriage service are not taking part in the service as you claim, then the service does not require their presence.

If a Hindu photographer does not want to take on a gig at a butcher shop, that is his Constitutuional and moral right.

First of all, conducting a marriage service, as a member of the clergy, is obviously an issue. Catering and photographing is not. A business is not allowed to discriminate. Just as a photographer cannot discriminate because the potential customer is of a different religion. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

Why must a Christian florist provide flowers for an atheist's wedding or a pagan wedding, but they get a pass on discrimination if it is a same sex wedding?

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Yes, if a fitness center wants to be female only, or a Hindu does not want to photograph the slaughter of a cow or Muslim caterer does not wish to prepare and serve pork, I have no issue with that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bullshit. They are paid to provide a service. The have a business that is open to the public. It is illegal to discriminate when you operate such a business.

It is funny that these "Christian" business owners don't object to selling their goods and services to Jews, Muslims, Pagans and atheists.

If catering, photographing and conducting a marriage service are not taking part in the service as you claim, then the service does not require their presence.

If a Hindu photographer does not want to take on a gig at a butcher shop, that is his Constitutuional and moral right.

First of all, conducting a marriage service, as a member of the clergy, is obviously an issue. Catering and photographing is not. A business is not allowed to discriminate. Just as a photographer cannot discriminate because the potential customer is of a different religion. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

Why must a Christian florist provide flowers for an atheist's wedding or a pagan wedding, but they get a pass on discrimination if it is a same sex wedding?

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Yes, if a fitness center wants to be female only, or a Hindu does not want to photograph the slaughter of a cow or Muslim caterer does not wish to prepare and serve pork, I have no issue with that.

If you want to open up a florist shop strictly for Christians, knock yourself out. But being open for business with the public means discrimination is illegal.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If catering, photographing and conducting a marriage service are not taking part in the service as you claim, then the service does not require their presence.

If a Hindu photographer does not want to take on a gig at a butcher shop, that is his Constitutuional and moral right.

First of all, conducting a marriage service, as a member of the clergy, is obviously an issue. Catering and photographing is not. A business is not allowed to discriminate. Just as a photographer cannot discriminate because the potential customer is of a different religion. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

Why must a Christian florist provide flowers for an atheist's wedding or a pagan wedding, but they get a pass on discrimination if it is a same sex wedding?

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Yes, if a fitness center wants to be female only, or a Hindu does not want to photograph the slaughter of a cow or Muslim caterer does not wish to prepare and serve pork, I have no issue with that.

If you want to open up a florist shop strictly for Christians, knock yourself out. But being open for business with the public means discrimination is illegal.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

 

[whitehall]

Why can't movie moguls learn to tolerate the religious beliefs of other Americans? Why would lefties celebrate the economic punishment of an entire state because of the religious beliefs and the freedom of the 1st Amendment? Lefties are vindictive, petty and bigoted and they don't even know it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

Not to mention freedom of association, which, while not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, is certainly very strongly implied from the explicit freedoms of expression and assembly.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers love to speak of the rule of law, and of obeying the law, in defense of policies which blatantly violate the Constitution, which is the highest law?

 

[Skylar]

Disney threatens to stop filming in Georgia if anti-gay bill becomes law

Once again proving that homosexuals run Hollywood, and in particular, run Disney at all levels, Disney has said it will boycott the state of Georgia if it passes a law saying that Christian bakers can't be forced to make gay wedding cakes.

In other words, Disney has made it clear that it values gays more than it does the "family values" kind of people who watch most of it's movies, cartoons, and TV shows, and go to its theme parks.

So it remains to be seen whether Georgia will bravely stand by Christians, or will it bend over and take it in the ass from gays.

This is what 'the market' looks like. You want market forces making these decisions, not the law.

Don't complain when the market won't put up with your bullshit either.

 

[Skylar]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

Not to mention freedom of association, which, while not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, is certainly very strongly implied from the explicit freedoms of expression and assembly.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers love to speak of the rule of law, and of obeying the law, in defense of policies which blatantly violate the Constitution, which is the highest law?

And shocker, the fringe right starts offering us segregationist logic last vomited up when blacks were told to get to the back of the bus.

The one thing I love about this election cycle? The lack of pretense.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

Not to mention freedom of association, which, while not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, is certainly very strongly implied from the explicit freedoms of expression and assembly.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers love to speak of the rule of law, and of obeying the law, in defense of policies which blatantly violate the Constitution, which is the highest law?

And shocker, the fringe right starts offering us segregationist logic last vomited up when blacks were told to get to the back of the bus.

The one thing I love about this election cycle? The lack of pretense.

Really? What verse did George Wallace (D) use to justify his effort to use skin color as to who gets what?

 

[Weatherman2020]

That is a lie. Catering, photographing, and conducting the service are all acts of taking part in the ceremony.

Bullshit. They are paid to provide a service. The have a business that is open to the public. It is illegal to discriminate when you operate such a business.

It is funny that these "Christian" business owners don't object to selling their goods and services to Jews, Muslims, Pagans and atheists.

If catering, photographing and conducting a marriage service are not taking part in the service as you claim, then the service does not require their presence.

If a Hindu photographer does not want to take on a gig at a butcher shop, that is his Constitutuional and moral right.

First of all, conducting a marriage service, as a member of the clergy, is obviously an issue. Catering and photographing is not. A business is not allowed to discriminate. Just as a photographer cannot discriminate because the potential customer is of a different religion. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

Why must a Christian florist provide flowers for an atheist's wedding or a pagan wedding, but they get a pass on discrimination if it is a same sex wedding?

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Tell me why Democrats believe denying someone access to a college or other benefits is acceptable based upon skin color.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Disney threatens to stop filming in Georgia if anti-gay bill becomes law

Once again proving that homosexuals run Hollywood, and in particular, run Disney at all levels, Disney has said it will boycott the state of Georgia if it passes a law saying that Christian bakers can't be forced to make gay wedding cakes.

In other words, Disney has made it clear that it values gays more than it does the "family values" kind of people who watch most of it's movies, cartoons, and TV shows, and go to its theme parks.

So it remains to be seen whether Georgia will bravely stand by Christians, or will it bend over and take it in the ass from gays.

Gays don't run Hollywood. That's ridiculous. I hope if Georgia passes their redneck law, Tim Cook refuses to sell iPhones to Georgians.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, conducting a marriage service, as a member of the clergy, is obviously an issue. Catering and photographing is not. A business is not allowed to discriminate. Just as a photographer cannot discriminate because the potential customer is of a different religion. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender.

Why must a Christian florist provide flowers for an atheist's wedding or a pagan wedding, but they get a pass on discrimination if it is a same sex wedding?

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Yes, if a fitness center wants to be female only, or a Hindu does not want to photograph the slaughter of a cow or Muslim caterer does not wish to prepare and serve pork, I have no issue with that.

If you want to open up a florist shop strictly for Christians, knock yourself out. But being open for business with the public means discrimination is illegal.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

No one is interferring with anyone's right to their religion. And again, why do Christian businesses have no objection to serving other religions and atheists?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why can't movie moguls learn to tolerate the religious beliefs of other Americans? Why would lefties celebrate the economic punishment of an entire state because of the religious beliefs and the freedom of the 1st Amendment? Lefties are vindictive, petty and bigoted and they don't even know it.

So people should do business with people who discriminate? Funny that you are behind one group not wanting to do business with a very select group, but object when someone else does the same thing?

 

[Silhouette]

Just an FYI, Georgia ranks 22nd in states for gay population. And Atlanta is behind only San Fran and Seattle for gay population.

But come here and spend your money.

Will they be wearing an "I'm gay" sticker in their lapel? If not, I could give a crap what merchants do in their bedroom. It's when they try to bully others into playing along with their behavior or try to perform a coup on the core of society (marriage) when I have a problem. No behavior is going to rip my rights to majority rule away. No behavior is going to bully me.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just an FYI, Georgia ranks 22nd in states for gay population. And Atlanta is behind only San Fran and Seattle for gay population.

But come here and spend your money.

Will they be wearing an "I'm gay" sticker in their lapel? If not, I could give a crap what merchants do in their bedroom. It's when they try to bully others into playing along with their behavior or try to perform a coup on the core of society (marriage) when I have a problem. No behavior is going to rip my rights to majority rule away. No behavior is going to bully me.

So you don't care what people do in their own bedroom. But you support those who do care what people do in their own bedroom? Interesting.

And we do not have majority rule in all cases. For some things it requires a 2/3 majority to amend the US Constitution. 2/3 of the population do not oppose gay marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

Disney threatens to stop filming in Georgia if anti-gay bill becomes law

Once again proving that homosexuals run Hollywood, and in particular, run Disney at all levels, Disney has said it will boycott the state of Georgia if it passes a law saying that Christian bakers can't be forced to make gay wedding cakes.

In other words, Disney has made it clear that it values gays more than it does the "family values" kind of people who watch most of it's movies, cartoons, and TV shows, and go to its theme parks.

So it remains to be seen whether Georgia will bravely stand by Christians, or will it bend over and take it in the ass from gays.

Do homosexuals run the NFL too? Because the NFL has said that the law could cost Georgia hosting the Super Bowl.

 

[Silhouette]

So you don't care what people do in their own bedroom. But you support those who do care what people do in their own bedroom? Interesting.

And we do not have majority rule in all cases. For some things it requires a 2/3 majority to amend the US Constitution. 2/3 of the population do not oppose gay marriage.

Don't put words in my mouth asshole. GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOM, GAY SEX IS. When two people of the same gender marry, it's no longer "in their bedroom"...it comes into the public arena and is forced upon the children involved who by illegal contract are stripped of either a mother or father for life.

The ILLEGAL SCOTUS Ruling FAILED to entertain representation for childrens' unique interest in the marriage contract.

States set the standards for marriage and if you think they don't, then polygamy is legal now also. Because one sexual orientation cannot have favored status over another if the right to self rule on the question of marriage is stripped away from them. Yet we don't find a single word in the Constitution about "right to marry", do we?

Loving v Virginia did not violate states' one man/one woman law. And since RACE couldn't be used to discriminate, Loving won. The issue was about racial discrimination, not if states can or cannot write marriage laws that discriminate for other reasons. What Obergefell (attempted) did was to fundamentally change state marriage laws from "one man/one woman" to something else entirely. Something else so foreign and fundamentally different than one man/ one woman that children can now be legally divorced from the missing parent FOR LIFE by two gay people "marrying".

 

[Weatherman2020]

That's where we disagree. I say the government should not be able to override the religious beliefs of citizens, you say it should. You want to force the Hindu to photograph a cow being slaughtered, I do not.

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Yes, if a fitness center wants to be female only, or a Hindu does not want to photograph the slaughter of a cow or Muslim caterer does not wish to prepare and serve pork, I have no issue with that.

If you want to open up a florist shop strictly for Christians, knock yourself out. But being open for business with the public means discrimination is illegal.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

No one is interferring with anyone's right to their religion. And again, why do Christian businesses have no objection to serving other religions and atheists?

You simply don't understand the concept of a higher calling.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree with the anti-discrimination laws. You think people should be able to use their religious beliefs to sidestep laws they don't like. We will just agree to disagree.

Yes, if a fitness center wants to be female only, or a Hindu does not want to photograph the slaughter of a cow or Muslim caterer does not wish to prepare and serve pork, I have no issue with that.

If you want to open up a florist shop strictly for Christians, knock yourself out. But being open for business with the public means discrimination is illegal.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

No one is interferring with anyone's right to their religion. And again, why do Christian businesses have no objection to serving other religions and atheists?

You simply don't understand the concept of a higher calling.

I understand quite well. If you have a calling from God, you cannot own certain businesses without having to entertain customers that do not follow your beliefs.

The 10 Commandments forbids having any God before the Judeo-Christian God. But somehow Christian businesses are fine doing business with Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you don't care what people do in their own bedroom. But you support those who do care what people do in their own bedroom? Interesting.

And we do not have majority rule in all cases. For some things it requires a 2/3 majority to amend the US Constitution. 2/3 of the population do not oppose gay marriage.

Don't put words in my mouth asshole. GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOM, GAY SEX IS. When two people of the same gender marry, it's no longer "in their bedroom"...it comes into the public arena and is forced upon the children involved who by illegal contract are stripped of either a mother or father for life.

The ILLEGAL SCOTUS Ruling FAILED to entertain representation for childrens' unique interest in the marriage contract.

States set the standards for marriage and if you think they don't, then polygamy is legal now also. Because one sexual orientation cannot have favored status over another if the right to self rule on the question of marriage is stripped away from them. Yet we don't find a single word in the Constitution about "right to marry", do we?

Loving v Virginia did not violate states' one man/one woman law. And since RACE couldn't be used to discriminate, Loving won. The issue was about racial discrimination, not if states can or cannot write marriage laws that discriminate for other reasons. What Obergefell (attempted) did was to fundamentally change state marriage laws from "one man/one woman" to something else entirely. Something else so foreign and fundamentally different than one man/ one woman that children can now be legally divorced from the missing parent FOR LIFE by two gay people "marrying".

The US Constitution requires the gov't treat everyone equally. Change that amendment, and you are free to ban gay marriage. But that isn't happening.