Federal judge orders Christian film-makers to make LGBT film

[eflatminor]

And meanwhile, the real story.

A video recording company made money working weddings. They decided they didn't want to video any gay weddings, so they're pretending to be "film makers" instead of "paid wedding video recorders".

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Why would two guys who want to marry each other want to hire a videographer who is repelled by the whole idea? Wouldn't they get better results from someone okay with gay marriage? I would think it would be better to be able to see up front who is willing and who is not.

Stop with the logic and reason. There'll be none of that around here!

 

[mamooth]

Stop with the logic and reason. There'll be none of that around here!

That's right. We need your logic, which says businesses can ban blacks.

Dang. Your logic is disgusting and immoral.

Well, at least it was before Trump changed America.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

So why are web hosters allowed to refuse white nationalist groups like stormfront? THINK

 

[Asclepias]

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

So why are web hosters allowed to refuse white nationalist groups like stormfront? THINK

Because they broke the rules dummy.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
It's called "the Human Rights Act". The plaintiffs (the videographers) brought the lawsuit specifically against this law, claiming it unconstitutional. Jesus man, read up.

Human Rights Act is a BRITISH law, you idiot.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Make your own film.

I don't want to see an LGBT film put out by a professional Christian scene-cutter.

And these faggots know the film won't be any good. This is just a PR stunt like faggots do all the time.

 

[Asclepias]

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

I do too.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So why are web hosters allowed to refuse white nationalist groups like stormfront? THINK

Because they broke the rules dummy.

What rule is that.?

 

[keepitreal]

Do not obtain a fraudulent court order for someone else to say it or show it for you.

What I MEANT TO SAY but was altered in my post above..
>>>Do not obtain a fraudulent court order to force someone else to say it or show it for you.<<<

You're confusing yourself. The videographers were the plaintiffs, not the defendants. They were registering a complaint against existing law. They were under the incorrect impression that calling their bigotry and discrimination "a religious belief" somehow afforded them special privilege to skirt the law. And they were wrong. Again. And again and again and again. Rinse, repeat.

They were under the incorrect impression that calling their bigotry and discrimination "a religious belief" somehow afforded them special privilege to skirt the law.

Go screw yourself!

Somehow, LGBT have been afforded special privilege
to call their bigotry and discrimination a civil right
which they use to force others with religious convictions
and moral decency, to partake in their perverted lifestyle

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of those wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

 

[eflatminor]

Stop with the logic and reason. There'll be none of that around here!

That's right. We need your logic, which says businesses can ban blacks.

Dang. Your logic is disgusting and immoral.

Well, at least it was before Trump changed America.

Okay, for the hundredth time, I'm a libertarian. I didn't vote for Trump.

You bring up morality. Tell me, what is immoral? Allowing an ignorant shopkeeper to demonstrate his bias and thereby suffer the ramifications of capitalism?

Or, shall we send armed government agents to kick down doors, confiscate property, and throw into prison anyone whose personal convictions might not coincide with your view of society? Look throughout history for how that tends to work out. When your ideas of morality absolutely require involuntary enforcement by police officers, I would suggest you should rethink your idea of morality.

No, I will stand by good people to protest the racist shopkeeper. I will give my business to a competitor. I will not unleash jack booted thugs to meddle in consensual activity between adults.

 

[Rustic]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regatdless of what you or I believe.

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

Correct, because white nationalists do not deserve such protections simply for being white nationalists. Sucks being on the losing side of history, eh? Mwahaha

 

[Rustic]

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

Correct, because white nationalists do not deserve such protections simply for being white nationalists. Sucks being on the losing side of history, eh? Mwahaha

Hypocrisy must be in your blood... lol

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regatdless of what you or I believe.

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

Because of scarcity and geology, I imagine. But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if black people don't want to eat at the local KKK hangout . The hangout doesn't get to post a "whites only"sign. Let's all take a moment to weep for their poor, oppressed souls:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regatdless of what you or I believe.

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

Because of scarcity and geology, I imagine. But that is irrelevant. It for an't matter if black people don't want to eat at the local KKK hangout . The hangout doesn't get to post a "whoites only"sign. Let's all take a moment to weep for their poor, oppressed souls:

That's an emotional argument, which isn't really an argument at all.

Let's stick to logic, reason and facts. What do you say?

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

I disagree yet again. Free markets and free minds is a concept for the future. It has nothing to do with government imposed Jim Crow laws of the past.

Open your mind.