Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So segregation now, segregation forever? As you seem to not only support discrimination against say, black folks.....but consider such bigotry 'sacred'.
The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.
NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.
That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.
The OP nailed the question in the first post and exposed all these people pretending to be Christians, but aren't.
Kristians in America cherry pick words, sentences, and phrases out of the bible and mold them to their narrow world view. They don't follow Jesus, they follow a false idol that in vagueness resembles a shadow of Jesus but who is in fact a false idol. This allows them to do whatever they like to their fellow human beings and feel good about it.
It is hypocrisy in the utmost. And the thing is, they know it. But they aren't moral people so living a lie comes natural to them.
What does the nature of rationalizations have to do with whether the acts in question should be illegal?
No, it isn't. It is exactly the same thing. If you sell a product or a service then you cannot refuse to sell that product or service to someone when it falls within a protected class. What that product or service might be is irrelevant.
I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.
I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.
I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
Your understanding of the law is non-existent.
Obviously that would be yourself. You are completely misrepresenting the law. It has no bearing on your product. The fact is that this couple violated anti-discrimination laws in their community. As business owners, they should have been aware that you cannot do what they did. It is their own fault they are stupid business people. Their religious freedoms end when they violate another groups civil rights. These laws have been in effect for SOME time now. Ignorance is no excuse.
I agree ignorance is no excuse. And even after I posted the text of the law for you to read, you remain ignorant. So it is doubly true for you.
Religious freedom does NOT trump civil rights or anti discrimination law. This has been established in the past.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
Your understanding of the law is non-existent.
Obviously that would be yourself. You are completely misrepresenting the law. It has no bearing on your product. The fact is that this couple violated anti-discrimination laws in their community. As business owners, they should have been aware that you cannot do what they did. It is their own fault they are stupid business people. Their religious freedoms end when they violate another groups civil rights. These laws have been in effect for SOME time now. Ignorance is no excuse.
I agree ignorance is no excuse. And even after I posted the text of the law for you to read, you remain ignorant. So it is doubly true for you.
Religious freedom does NOT trump civil rights or anti discrimination law. This has been established in the past.
more appeal to authority.
I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.
Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.
It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.CREAK go the goalposts....
Really? Printing can be anything from a book of baby ducks to hardcore porn.
A cake is a cake. Apples and oranges my friend.
No, it isn't. It is exactly the same thing. If you sell a product or a service then you cannot refuse to sell that product or service to someone when it falls within a protected class. What that product or service might be is irrelevant.
I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.
So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.
Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.
By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.
How about you stop being fascist?
I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.
I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause. (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US)
State and local public accommodations laws do not 'violate' religious liberty because their sole intent is indeed regulatory, in no way seeking to disadvantage religious expression, where such measures comply with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. (Employment Division v. Smith).
Consequently, the 'religious liberty' argument is nothing more than a facade behind which those hostile to gay Americans hide, as religious beliefs are not 'justification' to violate a just and Constitutional law.
I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
Lol. Your views are retarded.
State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause. (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US)
State and local public accommodations laws do not 'violate' religious liberty because their sole intent is indeed regulatory, in no way seeking to disadvantage religious expression, where such measures comply with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. (Employment Division v. Smith).
Consequently, the 'religious liberty' argument is nothing more than a facade behind which those hostile to gay Americans hide, as religious beliefs are not 'justification' to violate a just and Constitutional law.
More appeal to authority. and a hotel is different from a contracted service.
The PA argument has become nothing more than trying to establish ThoughtCrime.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
Lol. Your views are retarded.
I win, you lose, go play in traffic.
Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.
And if the Bigoted Kleins had stopped at just not providing the service, they might have gotten off easily.
Almost Everything You ve Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is Probably Wrong - The New Civil Rights Movement
Later, the Oregon DOJ sent Cryer's consumer complaint to the Kleins, with a cover letter requesting that they respond to the complainants. It was an attempt to encourage reconciliation.
Instead, Aaron Klein posted the discrimination complaint to Facebook (not taking the precaution of redacting the couple's name and address from the document). "This is what happens when you tell gay people you won't do their 'wedding cake,'" he posted.
The Kleins then took to the news and media. They cozied up to anti-gay hate group Family Research Council, campaigning at appallingly anti-gay hate rallies, for their business' totally-fictional right to discriminate against LGBT people.
After filing the discrimination complaint, the Bowman-Cryers became the victims of death threats — as well as outrageous and horrific claims by conservative media outlets and anti-gay groups.
State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause. (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US)
State and local public accommodations laws do not 'violate' religious liberty because their sole intent is indeed regulatory, in no way seeking to disadvantage religious expression, where such measures comply with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. (Employment Division v. Smith).
Consequently, the 'religious liberty' argument is nothing more than a facade behind which those hostile to gay Americans hide, as religious beliefs are not 'justification' to violate a just and Constitutional law.
More appeal to authority. and a hotel is different from a contracted service.
The PA argument has become nothing more than trying to establish ThoughtCrime.
Ohhhh, you poor thing. Boo hoo. Everyone feels sorry for you.
I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.
Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.
Well, why stop there?
The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.
Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!
and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.
Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.
Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.
So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.
The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.
You miss the point - the so-called "christians" pick and choose their beliefs based on their own fears.
