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

[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.

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, O alredy 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.

Argle-bargle bullshit.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

US v Decency

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Nice defense mechanism. I hope people don't mistake your running off as a sign of dishonest desperation.
They probably will. I know I do. Farewell, Old Woman.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

US v Decency

Oh, dear. The judgemental babbling of someone who defends England's treatment of their political prisoners as a means of covering up the pedophile rings they let freely operate for so many years means so much to me.
Gosh...it's downright dismaying.

 

[rightwinger]

Where is there any text in the Constitution that says any such thing? Which Article/Section, or which Amendment says that?

You are obviously a supporter of Sharia Law

I'll take that absurd non-sequitur as an admission that you cannot support your ridiculous claim that “Constitutional Law says public law takes precedence over religious law.”

I don’t see Sharia Law being enforced
Do you?

 

[rightwinger]

So right now

If a same sex couple want to get married, a baker can refuse to make a cake, a photographer can refuse to take pictures

What stops a banquet hall from refusing service, a limo company from denying service, a hotel refusing a room?

Defacto Jim Crow

We don’t serve gays here

Nothing should stop them from refusing.

Nobody should be compelled by law to support that which one knows to be immoral.

Then why do they provide services to adulterers?
Does not their religion condemn adultery?

I’ll tell you why they still provide those services
Because they are only bigoted towards gays

Our courts should have no part of it

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

It's funny that yours is the side that is so fond of falsely accusing mine of being racist and sexist and bigoted, but here, you just equated being black or being a woman being an immoral, degenerate sexual pervert. How much more deeply bigoted can one get than that?

I guess the one thing you got right is that we do not seem to have any common ground on which to continue this conversation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

US v Decency

A subhuman piece of shit who took the side of Islamist child-rape gangs infesting his own country is in no position to speak of decency.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Then why do they provide services to adulterers?
Does not their religion condemn adultery?

I’ll tell you why they still provide those services
Because they are only bigoted towards gays

Our courts should have no part of it

I've not heard of any case of someone demanding goods or services to celebrate or support an adulterous relationship, and suing when a merchant declined to provide it. If such a case ever does come up, I'm solidly on the merchant's side.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

So remind us how you protest and complain when ever a business refuses to serve a Trump supporter?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The Majority in California said no to homosexuals and the courts threw it out. So much fir the majority you so loving claim to support.