Fed Court: Christian Videographers Don’t Have to Film Homo Wedding

[Bob Blaylock]

No one is forcing people to be videographers, or offer their services for sale to the public. Once they do offer their services to the public, though, they have to offer those services without discrimination.

Revelation 13:16-17.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I realize you have a pretty extreme view on this matter, TN, and don't believe in any P.A. laws, but most people do not want to see the bad old days of the 1950's return. All men (people) are created equal in the eyes of the law. The law says we will treat them equally. The court that just made that ruling is allowing the videographers to break the law. Hence, disappointing.

It surely is a sign of how degenerate our society has become, that you can get away with calling a desire not to be forced to support or participate in something that is so blatantly immoral, and not believing that others should be forced to do so, and should not have one's very livelihood threatened or destroyed for declining to do so as “a pretty extreme view”. In a healthy, sane society, this would be common sense and common decency, at the very least.

There are plenty of "sins" in the Bible. Why is sodomy so much more emphasized, although it is very seldom mentioned, than adultery? Eating shellfish? Swearing at your parents? It is because people haven't gotten used to it. Homosexuality was ILLEGAL until the 1950's, wasn't it? You could be arrested for it? No one ever talked about it, that's for sure. Gays hid it. Now in less than a century we are allowing them to marry and have full blown weddings with cakes and dancing and videos. A lot of people aren't quite ready. Your kids probably will be.

We do not have proponents of most of these other sins trying to define them as civil rights, and demanding that the rest of society embrace them, and attacking anyone who dares to call these other sins for what they are.

What makes homosexuality so special, that those who want no part in this disgusting perversion should be forced to support it?

 

[OldLady]

No one is forcing people to be videographers, or offer their services for sale to the public. Once they do offer their services to the public, though, they have to offer those services without discrimination.

Coercion is not a choice.

I don't understand where you see coercion, except for following the law?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

"Christian videographers." Lol this country's a hoot.

I dont understand why cant a practicing church going Christian be a videographer .? Whats wrong with it ?

Why doesn't he have a right to take or leave any job he chooses ?

Exactly. It's joke that homosexual fetishists can claim to be 'minorities' of some kind, and that's what the scam is based on, a ridiculous false premise that some 'civil right' is involved, when all they are is mentally ill neurotics with harmful sexual practices and a public health menace, and also have a high propensity for raping male children.

Its all about the meaningless totalitarian left wing activism

whats scary is that a portion of the pop bows to it and the government encourages it ...and sometimes enforces it


North of the border
some pure homo left wing freak activism picked up by the EVIL NAZI Canadian human rights council

Single dad faces human rights complaint for not hiring male babysitter after inquiring about his gender and age

 

[OldLady]

I realize you have a pretty extreme view on this matter, TN, and don't believe in any P.A. laws, but most people do not want to see the bad old days of the 1950's return. All men (people) are created equal in the eyes of the law. The law says we will treat them equally. The court that just made that ruling is allowing the videographers to break the law. Hence, disappointing.

It surely is a sign of how degenerate our society has become, that you can get away with calling a desire not to be forced to support or participate in something that is so blatantly immoral, and not believing that others should be forced to do so, and should not have one's very livelihood threatened or destroyed for declining to do so as “a pretty extreme view”. In a healthy, sane society, this would be common sense and common decency, at the very least.

There are plenty of "sins" in the Bible. Why is sodomy so much more emphasized, although it is very seldom mentioned, than adultery? Eating shellfish? Swearing at your parents? It is because people haven't gotten used to it. Homosexuality was ILLEGAL until the 1950's, wasn't it? You could be arrested for it? No one ever talked about it, that's for sure. Gays hid it. Now in less than a century we are allowing them to marry and have full blown weddings with cakes and dancing and videos. A lot of people aren't quite ready. Your kids probably will be.

We do not have proponents of most of these other sins trying to define them as civil rights, and demanding that the rest of society embrace them, and attacking anyone who dares to call these other sins for what they are.

What makes homosexuality so special, that those who want no part in this disgusting perversion should be forced to support it?

I don't believe it is a disgusting perversion. There is no common ground here for us to share in this argument. While I can understand how you feel, it is still, in the end, bigotry, whether you got that idea from church or from your Uncle Harvey. My question is, if YOUR belief is a valid reason to discriminate and withhold services you would provide to anyone else, why wouldn't anyone else's "belief" be valid too? And if it is valid against homosexuality, why isn't equally valid to refuse to serve blacks or women or whatever? You heard of slippery slope? I think we're careening down it right now.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't believe it is a disgusting perversion. There is no common ground here for us to share in this argument. While I can understand how you feel, it is still, in the end, bigotry, whether you got that idea from church or from your Uncle Harvey. My question is, if YOUR belief is a valid reason to discriminate and withhold services you would provide to anyone else, why wouldn't anyone else's "belief" be valid too? And if it is valid against homosexuality, why isn't equally valid to refuse to serve blacks or women or whatever? You heard of slippery slope? I think we're careening down it right now.

All Abrahamic religions share a common view of homosexuality. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
True believers have the right to refuse to serve in a practice, gay marriage, they find abhorrent.
And the world does not come to an end if Raymond and Steve can't get their wedding cake
from a certain baker. They can simply go to another provider.

There is no slippery slope because there is no religion that rejects blacks, or any race for that matter, or females as sinful or ungodly.You are acting like religions treat homosexuality and race as if they are viewed the same way. Not so.

Therefore it's disingenuousto say if one is allowed to refuse to help a gay marriage
then the next step is using religion to justify racism or misogyny.
That's a false premise and nothing justifies it.

 

[OldLady]

I don't believe it is a disgusting perversion. There is no common ground here for us to share in this argument. While I can understand how you feel, it is still, in the end, bigotry, whether you got that idea from church or from your Uncle Harvey. My question is, if YOUR belief is a valid reason to discriminate and withhold services you would provide to anyone else, why wouldn't anyone else's "belief" be valid too? And if it is valid against homosexuality, why isn't equally valid to refuse to serve blacks or women or whatever? You heard of slippery slope? I think we're careening down it right now.

All Abrahamic religions share a common view of homosexuality. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
True believers have the right to refuse to serve in a practice, gay marriage, they find abhorrent.
And the world does not come to an end if Raymond and Steve can't get their wedding cake
from a certain baker. They can simply go to another provider.

There is no slippery slope because there is no religion that rejects blacks, or any race for that matter, or females as sinful or ungodly.You are acting like religions treat homosexuality and race as if they are viewed the same way. Not so.

Therefore it's disingenuousto say if one is allowed to refuse to help a gay marriage
then the next step is using religion to justify racism or misogyny.
That's a false premise and nothing justifies it.

True believers have the right to refuse to serve in a practice, gay marriage, they find abhorrent.
Who says, besides you?
All Abrahamic religions share a common view of homosexuality. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
I was raised in the United Church of Christ, earned my own Bible with my name on the front for perfect attendance in Sunday School and said my prayers every night before I went to bed.
I was never taught any such thing.
A very dear family member, an uncle, was gay. He was a WWII vet, a teacher his entire professional life, a small business owner and a upstanding member of the community who earned the respect of all who knew him. He was also a decent man with iron principles. Everyone in our tiny town knew which way his bread was buttered; he actually tried to kill himself after one of his partners split with him. None of it was ever spoken of and he could not ever publicly demonstrate any trace of his proclivity. He lived alone and died a lonely man.
I'm glad people no longer have to live that way. He was as good a Christian as you or any other Christian you know.
That I am sure of.

 

[OldLady]

I don't believe it is a disgusting perversion. There is no common ground here for us to share in this argument. While I can understand how you feel, it is still, in the end, bigotry, whether you got that idea from church or from your Uncle Harvey. My question is, if YOUR belief is a valid reason to discriminate and withhold services you would provide to anyone else, why wouldn't anyone else's "belief" be valid too? And if it is valid against homosexuality, why isn't equally valid to refuse to serve blacks or women or whatever? You heard of slippery slope? I think we're careening down it right now.

All Abrahamic religions share a common view of homosexuality. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
True believers have the right to refuse to serve in a practice, gay marriage, they find abhorrent.
And the world does not come to an end if Raymond and Steve can't get their wedding cake
from a certain baker. They can simply go to another provider.

There is no slippery slope because there is no religion that rejects blacks, or any race for that matter, or females as sinful or ungodly.You are acting like religions treat homosexuality and race as if they are viewed the same way. Not so.

Therefore it's disingenuousto say if one is allowed to refuse to help a gay marriage
then the next step is using religion to justify racism or misogyny.
That's a false premise and nothing justifies it.

I must not have been clear. I wasn't saying any religion rejects blacks or females as Ungodly. I was saying WHAT MAKES YOUR BELIEF SO MUCH MORE SPECIAL THAN ANYONE ELSE'S? Why isn't another dude's opinion that blacks are subhuman just as valid as yours that gays are revolting and sinful? When you look at it as a choice made because of a belief system, why is your belief so much more valid than anyone else's, and why can't they make the same argument against serving whomever they detest?
You see now?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I must not have been clear. I wasn't saying any religion rejects blacks or females as Ungodly. I was saying WHAT MAKES YOUR BELIEF SO MUCH MORE SPECIAL THAN ANYONE ELSE'S? Why isn't another dude's opinion that blacks are subhuman just as valid as yours that gays are revolting and sinful? When you look at it as a choice made because of a belief system, why is your belief so much more valid than anyone else's, and why can't they make the same argument against serving whomever they detest?
You see now?

No.
Anybody can make the choice to believe whatever they want. Who can say, however, their several thousand year old world wide religion endorses treating racial minorities like sub humans?

The very idea is a laugh and the bible is absolutely neutral on the whole subject. I'm not a biblical scholar but I don't think it addresses the issue in any way at all. Racial stratification is a modern phenomenon and problem.

You can claim a view that blacks are less than human is just as valid as mine but once you say that where is your intellectual and moral backing? Certainly not in any religion that I know of.

And since that is all true you could open a shop and refuse to serve inferior races as in line with your firmly held religious views but who will recognize any religion like that? Not the United States of America. I can assure you that.
The slippery slope is covered in horse manure.

 

[OldLady]

I must not have been clear. I wasn't saying any religion rejects blacks or females as Ungodly. I was saying WHAT MAKES YOUR BELIEF SO MUCH MORE SPECIAL THAN ANYONE ELSE'S? Why isn't another dude's opinion that blacks are subhuman just as valid as yours that gays are revolting and sinful? When you look at it as a choice made because of a belief system, why is your belief so much more valid than anyone else's, and why can't they make the same argument against serving whomever they detest?
You see now?

No.
Anybody can make the choice to believe whatever they want. Who can say, however, their several thousand year old world wide religion endorses treating racial minorities like sub humans?

The very idea is a laugh and the bible is absolutely neutral on the whole subject. I'm not a biblical scholar but I don't think it addresses the issue in any way at all. Racial stratification is a modern phenomenon and problem.

You can claim a view that blacks are less than human is just as valid as mine that they are not but once you say that where is your intellectual and moral backing? Certainly not in any religion that I know of.

And since that is all true you could open a shop and refuse to serve inferior races as in line with your firmly held religious views but who will recognize any religion like that? Not the United States of America. I can assure you that.
The slippery slope is covered in horse manure.

where is your intellectual and moral backing?
Insisting on discriminating against homosexuals because you feel they are "abhorrent" is not real "moral" imo.
You're providing an argument that is pretty much the horse manure we're sliding on.

 

[Picaro]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

Actuality it is, dumbass; your lack of awareness and reality doesn't impose a burden on the rest of us. Faggots aren't denied equal protection under the law, they choose to be sicko freaks on their own, not even remotely a 'right' protected by law in the ways intended to protect blacks from discrimination because of their skin color. I know you're mentally ill, too much dope smoking and porn addiction, desensitized like a good little left wing degenerate to grasp the difference, though, which fits in with what we know about chronic drug abuse and the withering away of reasoning skills. We can see it's rampant enough to be the base of a n entire Party of sicko and deviants.

 

[Picaro]

Their business has no First Amendment rights

Anybody who believes somebody's labor is to be forced from them does not believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty.

You are free to work or not

You cannot say “We do not serve negroes here” and remain in business

self-indulgent sexual deviants are not blacks. And, they're a public health menace, and should be barred from any place that serves food or has children around, at least without recent proof of testing negative for a raft of diseases they top the list of major spreaders and carriers. We also know for a fact organizations like churches and Scouts and schools should definitely screen out homosexuals.

 

[OldLady]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

Actuality it is, dumbass; your lack of awareness and reality doesn't impose a burden on the rest of us. Faggots aren't denied equal protection under the law, they choose to be sicko freaks on their own, not even remotely a 'right' protected by law in the ways intended to protect blacks from discrimination because of their skin color. I know you're mentally ill, too much dope smoking and porn addiction, desensitized like a good little left wing degenerate to grasp the difference, though, which fits in with what we know about chronic drug abuse and the withering away of reasoning skills. We can see it's rampant enough to be the base of a n entire Party of sicko and deviants.

MDK is one of the kindest, most decent folks on this board. You are one hateful motherfucker and I think you're fighting a shadow, anyway, because iirc MDK opposes P.A. laws.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

where is your intellectual and moral backing?
Insisting on discriminating against homosexuals because you feel they are "abhorrent" is not real "moral" imo.
You're providing an argument that is pretty much the horse manure we're sliding on.

First of all I'm not a fundamentalist absolutist so I don't claim the homosexuality is a sin (or if it is it's no worse
between two consenting adults than any other sin, such as gluttony, sloth, etc.). So get that straight, no pun intended.

It's the view of Abrahamic religions that homosexuality is sinful. And they have their justifications and rationales
all worked out for literally centuries. It's harmful to families, it lessens birth rates, it causes societal dissension and lessens cohesion, etc.
I urge you to research the issue but please understand it's their religion and they get to believe that they want.
Just as they wouldn't impose their views on you, you don't get to tell them what to think and how to worship.

We are talking about the selling of a service here. No one is being stoned or thrown off rooftops. If this bakery won't do your wedding cake that other one will....big fucking deal.

 

[OldLady]

where is your intellectual and moral backing?
Insisting on discriminating against homosexuals because you feel they are "abhorrent" is not real "moral" imo.
You're providing an argument that is pretty much the horse manure we're sliding on.

First of all I'm not a fundamentalist absolutist so I don't claim the homosexuality is a sin (or if it is it's no worse
between two consenting adults than any other sin, such as gluttony, sloth, etc.). So get that straight, no pun intended.

It's the view of Abrahamic religions that homosexuality is sinful. And they have their justifications and rationales
all worked out for literally centuries. It's harmful to families, it lessens birth rates, it causes societal dissension and lessens cohesion, etc.
I urge you to research the issue but please understand it's their religion and they get to believe that they want.
Just as they wouldn't impose their views on you, you don't get to tell them what to think and how to worship.

We are talking about the selling of a service here. No one is being stoned or thrown off rooftops. If this bakery won't do your wedding cake that other one will....big fucking deal.

I see the Church and the State as two separate powers. When the Church refuses to follow the law because their faith doesn't agree with it, that is a big deal. Maybe there shouldn't be such a law, I don't know, but it shouldn't be forgiven to only a small number of citizens in a certain sect. This is a democracy and what the majority says, goes. Maybe there needs to be a referendum on it. But for a small minority to get a cut out on following the law?
Nuh-uh. That is a very big deal and it is not fair.

 

[Picaro]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

Actuality it is, dumbass; your lack of awareness and reality doesn't impose a burden on the rest of us. Faggots aren't denied equal protection under the law, they choose to be sicko freaks on their own, not even remotely a 'right' protected by law in the ways intended to protect blacks from discrimination because of their skin color. I know you're mentally ill, too much dope smoking and porn addiction, desensitized like a good little left wing degenerate to grasp the difference, though, which fits in with what we know about chronic drug abuse and the withering away of reasoning skills. We can see it's rampant enough to be the base of a n entire Party of sicko and deviants.

MDK is one of the kindest, most decent folks on this board. You are one hateful motherfucker and I think you're fighting a shadow, anyway, because iirc MDK opposes P.A. laws.

So he shouldn't insult people and troll them. You can kiss my ass, too; you're one of the bigger hypocrites and phonies here as well. Sexual deviants are sociopaths; how well they can fake appearing to be something else isn't my problem or concern.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I see the Church and the State as two separate powers. When the Church refuses to follow the law because their faith doesn't agree with it, that is a big deal. Maybe there shouldn't be such a law, I don't know, but it shouldn't be forgiven to only a small number of citizens in a certain sect. This is a democracy and what the majority says, goes. Maybe there needs to be a referendum on it. But for a small minority to get a cut out on following the law?
Nuh-uh. That is a very big deal and it is not fair.

As unfair as compelling slave labor so you can vindictively get your gay wedding cake? I don't think so and neither did the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision. If the Bill of Rights offends you so much move to Canada.

 

[OldLady]

I see the Church and the State as two separate powers. When the Church refuses to follow the law because their faith doesn't agree with it, that is a big deal. Maybe there shouldn't be such a law, I don't know, but it shouldn't be forgiven to only a small number of citizens in a certain sect. This is a democracy and what the majority says, goes. Maybe there needs to be a referendum on it. But for a small minority to get a cut out on following the law?
Nuh-uh. That is a very big deal and it is not fair.

As unfair as compelling slave labor so you can vindictively get your gay wedding cake? I don't think so and neither did the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision. If the Bill of Rights offends you so much move to Canada.

So much for thinking you were going to discuss this reasonably.

 

[mdk]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

Actuality it is, dumbass; your lack of awareness and reality doesn't impose a burden on the rest of us. Faggots aren't denied equal protection under the law, they choose to be sicko freaks on their own, not even remotely a 'right' protected by law in the ways intended to protect blacks from discrimination because of their skin color. I know you're mentally ill, too much dope smoking and porn addiction, desensitized like a good little left wing degenerate to grasp the difference, though, which fits in with what we know about chronic drug abuse and the withering away of reasoning skills. We can see it's rampant enough to be the base of a n entire Party of sicko and deviants.

Nice rant, twat. I never said anything about equal protection for fags or darkies. I'm all for a business serving whomever they wish. Or not. For me, this about is about business and property rights, but you seem to be more concerned with whining about queers.

 

[Picaro]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

Actuality it is, dumbass; your lack of awareness and reality doesn't impose a burden on the rest of us. Faggots aren't denied equal protection under the law, they choose to be sicko freaks on their own, not even remotely a 'right' protected by law in the ways intended to protect blacks from discrimination because of their skin color. I know you're mentally ill, too much dope smoking and porn addiction, desensitized like a good little left wing degenerate to grasp the difference, though, which fits in with what we know about chronic drug abuse and the withering away of reasoning skills. We can see it's rampant enough to be the base of a n entire Party of sicko and deviants.

Nice rant, twat. I never said anything about equal protection for fags or darkies. I'm all for a business serving whomever they wish. Or not. For me, this about is about business and property rights, but you seem to be more concerned with whining about queers.

What 'rant'? Pointing out fact about homos isn't 'ranting', that's just some rubbish invented out of nowhere. As for the rest of your post, I already knew you had no real rebuttals, just left with lame attempts to shift the topic away from issues you don't want to admit to, is all. If you want to keep changing the topic, no need to keep citing my posts since you don't want to address them, just go ahead and do it all on your own.