Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[martybegan]

Again, its not about equality, its about forcing acceptance. The photographers and the bakers were the start, this is the next logical step.

Yes, when you are offering a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, you have to offer it to everyone who can pay. Period.

"We don't serve you people" has been against the law since the 1960's.

This isn't a store. There is a difference between being made to sell a bagel from behind a counter to all comers, and having the government force you to host an event you find morally objectionable.

The only reason you people do this is you like forcing your own morality on others. it makes you no better than religious people trying to force theirs on you. In fact its worse because you assholes use the government to do it.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, its not about equality, its about forcing acceptance. The photographers and the bakers were the start, this is the next logical step.

Yes, when you are offering a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, you have to offer it to everyone who can pay. Period.

"We don't serve you people" has been against the law since the 1960's.

This isn't a store. There is a difference between being made to sell a bagel from behind a counter to all comers, and having the government force you to host an event you find morally objectionable.

The only reason you people do this is you like forcing your own morality on others. it makes you no better than religious people trying to force theirs on you. In fact its worse because you assholes use the government to do it.

It isn't a store, but it IS a public accommodation. They were offering it as available for weddings and taking money to utilize it. They advertised it to all comers and no doubt were interested when originally approached until they found out they'd be playing Melissa Ethridge Albums at the wedding.

It's not a matter of "forcing morality", it's a matter of preventing discrimination. This isn't even a new thing, we had this argument about race 50 years ago and the bigots lost.

 

[martybegan]

I don;t disagree that the laws exists, what I state is they are wrong.

Well, you're welcome to think the laws are wrong. But they're not going to change.

And eventually all you assholes will be dead, and shit like this will be looked back on the same way we look at "colored" drinking fountains now.

There is a big difference between separate water fountains and forcing someone to host an event they find morally objectionable. The fact you use that comparison is comical.

 

[martybegan]

Again, its not about equality, its about forcing acceptance. The photographers and the bakers were the start, this is the next logical step.

Yes, when you are offering a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, you have to offer it to everyone who can pay. Period.

"We don't serve you people" has been against the law since the 1960's.

This isn't a store. There is a difference between being made to sell a bagel from behind a counter to all comers, and having the government force you to host an event you find morally objectionable.

The only reason you people do this is you like forcing your own morality on others. it makes you no better than religious people trying to force theirs on you. In fact its worse because you assholes use the government to do it.

It isn't a store, but it IS a public accommodation. They were offering it as available for weddings and taking money to utilize it. They advertised it to all comers and no doubt were interested when originally approached until they found out they'd be playing Melissa Ethridge Albums at the wedding.

It's not a matter of "forcing morality", it's a matter of preventing discrimination. This isn't even a new thing, we had this argument about race 50 years ago and the bigots lost.

In the argument 50 years ago it was the government forcing discrimination via laws. Actually we have the same thing here, execpt the discrimination is against the owners, and agains people YOU don't like, so that makes it OK in your book.

 

[JoeB131]

[

It isn't a store, but it IS a public accommodation. They were offering it as available for weddings and taking money to utilize it. They advertised it to all comers and no doubt were interested when originally approached until they found out they'd be playing Melissa Ethridge Albums at the wedding.

It's not a matter of "forcing morality", it's a matter of preventing discrimination. This isn't even a new thing, we had this argument about race 50 years ago and the bigots lost.

In the argument 50 years ago it was the government forcing discrimination via laws. Actually we have the same thing here, execpt the discrimination is against the owners, and agains people YOU don't like, so that makes it OK in your book.

Okay, so let's nail it down, is it okay for a business to day, "We don't Serve N****rs!" if they are saying it without prompting from the government? Or to refuse to rent an apartment on the same logic?

Are you saying that racism is okay when practiced by private individuals, or only homophobia?

Now, the argument made by the couple was that this was their "religious beliefs", but I'm guessing they didn't check to see if every bride was still a virgin like the bible says they should be.

 

[2aguy]

In the argument 50 years ago it was the government forcing discrimination via laws. Actually we have the same thing here, execpt the discrimination is against the owners, and agains people YOU don't like, so that makes it OK in your book.

Excellent point...it was the government mandating discrimination that kept the free market from correcting it...they always talk about bussing in the south...people don't realize that segregated busing was only viable because the government forced it in all bus services...before the democrats created Jim Crow laws there was integrated mass transportation in the south...that ended with Jim Crow....government mandated discrimination...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again, its not about equality, its about forcing acceptance. The photographers and the bakers were the start, this is the next logical step.

Yes, when you are offering a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, you have to offer it to everyone who can pay. Period.

"We don't serve you people" has been against the law since the 1960's.

This isn't a store. There is a difference between being made to sell a bagel from behind a counter to all comers, and having the government force you to host an event you find morally objectionable.

The only reason you people do this is you like forcing your own morality on others. it makes you no better than religious people trying to force theirs on you. In fact its worse because you assholes use the government to do it.

It isn't a store, but it IS a public accommodation. They were offering it as available for weddings and taking money to utilize it. They advertised it to all comers and no doubt were interested when originally approached until they found out they'd be playing Melissa Ethridge Albums at the wedding.

It's not a matter of "forcing morality", it's a matter of preventing discrimination. This isn't even a new thing, we had this argument about race 50 years ago and the bigots lost.

In the argument 50 years ago it was the government forcing discrimination via laws. Actually we have the same thing here, execpt the discrimination is against the owners, and agains people YOU don't like, so that makes it OK in your book.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Marty,

The above link is to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v United States which is the SCOTUS ruling on Public Accommodation laws.

Please show us where any part of the case was based on a Georgia law requiring that motels not serve black people.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Excellent point...it was the government mandating discrimination that kept the free market from correcting it...they always talk about bussing in the south...people don't realize that segregated busing was only viable because the government forced it in all bus services...before the democrats created Jim Crow laws there was integrated mass transportation in the south...that ended with Jim Crow....government mandated discrimination...

Not even a nice try. The government at that time only represented the bigotries of the populace of the time, which is why civil rights laws had to apply to businesses as well as governments.

there wasn't a "Well, Mississippi, you have to end segregation, but Bob's Dinner can still refuse to serve Negroes!"

If you want to go that route, then when NY legalized gay marriages, it obligated business owners to serve gays, just as when Jim Crow laws were overturned, it obligated businesses to serve blacks.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, so let's nail it down, is it okay for a business to day, "We don't Serve N****rs!" if they are saying it without prompting from the government? Or to refuse to rent an apartment on the same logic?

Are you saying that racism is okay when practiced by private individuals, or only homophobia?

Now, the argument made by the couple was that this was their "religious beliefs", but I'm guessing they didn't check to see if every bride was still a virgin like the bible says they should be.

I'll say it...if you own private property...that is a business, which is actually private,property...you should be,able,to run that business,however you want, serving or not serving anyone you want....

the thing is....the government cannot mandate discrimination...that is where the problem came in in the past...the free market will overcome discrimination in private businesses..

For example...the bakers and caterers and photographers who refused to help in gay weddings...there were others who gladly served those customers...right? That is how the free market works...

Now in the days when the democrats were discriminating against blacks...they used the power of government to force all businesses to do it...so there wasn't a way around it in the free market because the free market was controlled by the government...

 

[2aguy]

Not even a nice try. The government at that time only represented the bigotries of the populace of the time, which is why civil rights laws had to apply to businesses as well as governments.

sorry, not even a good,try on your part...even in the racist,,democrat south people wanted to make money and there were people who would have opened businesses that went against those bigotries...again...segregated busing wasn't total until after the democrat government mandated it...

 

[bodecea]

The petitioned the commission, and they are getting compensated, That's suing, and the use of semantics does nothing to hide that fact.

They got the State to sue FOR them, which is even worse.

Nope....they were fined for breaking a state law. The couple did not sue them....they reported them. Do you have a problem with someone reporting a law being broken?

They did not break a law, if they had the would have gone to criminal court. The were fined because there are unconstitutional regulations that are considered to be law by people who think that we should have a king instead of a president.

Then, it would be your civic duty to challenge the constitutionality of such laws, wouldn't it? Unless you'd rather just whine.

What makes you think I am not doing that?

Ah then...share with us what you are actively doing to challenge the constitutionality of such laws. Others who wish to join you might find that useful.

 

[bodecea]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

 

[JoeB131]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

The part where it isn't a free ride to disobey laws you don't like.

But we don't even need to go that far. These owners are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. BUt they don't have a right to refuse service to gays through their business. Their business is not an "establishment of religion", nor does it have religious beliefs.

 

[JoeB131]

Not even a nice try. The government at that time only represented the bigotries of the populace of the time, which is why civil rights laws had to apply to businesses as well as governments.

sorry, not even a good,try on your part...even in the racist,,democrat south people wanted to make money and there were people who would have opened businesses that went against those bigotries...again...segregated busing wasn't total until after the democrat government mandated it...

Um.... no.

First, Jim Crow laws predated bus service.

There was not a class of Capitalists who just wanted to do business with black folks and mean old government was stopping them. Quite the contrary, the Captalists were all for Jim Crow laws so the dumb inbred poor whites could still feel a little better about themselves and not do things like form unions like them Yankees were doing.

Racism and Homophobia- Helping the rich fool stupid white people since 1865.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'll say it...if you own private property...that is a business, which is actually private,property...you should be,able,to run that business,however you want, serving or not serving anyone you want....

the thing is....the government cannot mandate discrimination...that is where the problem came in in the past...the free market will overcome discrimination in private businesses..

For example...the bakers and caterers and photographers who refused to help in gay weddings...there were others who gladly served those customers...right? That is how the free market works...

Now in the days when the democrats were discriminating against blacks...they used the power of government to force all businesses to do it...so there wasn't a way around it in the free market because the free market was controlled by the government...

Free Markets don't cure anything but the insatiable greed of the rich.

And, no, those bakers and photographers can only have businesses because we have the government infrastructure to support them. Otherwise, they'd get robbed every day.

 

[2aguy]

From economist Walter Williams on racism and the market...

A Lesson on Racial Discrimination - Walter E. Williams - Page 1

Recently deceased Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker pointed this phenomenon out some years ago in his path-breaking study "The Economics of Discrimination." Many people think that it takes government to eliminate racial discrimination, but economic theory predicts the opposite. Market competition imposes inescapable profit penalties on for-profit enterprises when they make employment decisions on any basis other than worker productivity. Professor Becker's study of racial discrimination upended the view that discriminatory bias benefits those who discriminate. He demonstrated that racial discrimination is less likely in the most competitive industries, which need to hire the best workers.

According to Forbes magazine, the Los Angeles Clippers would sell for $575 million. Ask yourself what the Clippers would sell for if Sterling were a racist in his public life and hired only white players. All the evidence suggests that would be a grossly losing proposition on at least two counts. Percentagewise, blacks more so than whites excel in basketball. That's not to say that it is impossible to recruit a team of first-rate, excellent white players. However, because there is a smaller number of top-tier white players relative to black players, the recruitment costs would be prohibitive. In other words, a team of excellent white players would be far costlier to field than a team of excellent black players. It's simply a matter of supply and demand.

Yeah...if racism is the guiding factor...why wouldn't sterling have only hired white players...?

 

[martybegan]

[

It isn't a store, but it IS a public accommodation. They were offering it as available for weddings and taking money to utilize it. They advertised it to all comers and no doubt were interested when originally approached until they found out they'd be playing Melissa Ethridge Albums at the wedding.

It's not a matter of "forcing morality", it's a matter of preventing discrimination. This isn't even a new thing, we had this argument about race 50 years ago and the bigots lost.

In the argument 50 years ago it was the government forcing discrimination via laws. Actually we have the same thing here, execpt the discrimination is against the owners, and agains people YOU don't like, so that makes it OK in your book.

Okay, so let's nail it down, is it okay for a business to day, "We don't Serve N****rs!" if they are saying it without prompting from the government? Or to refuse to rent an apartment on the same logic?

Are you saying that racism is okay when practiced by private individuals, or only homophobia?

Now, the argument made by the couple was that this was their "religious beliefs", but I'm guessing they didn't check to see if every bride was still a virgin like the bible says they should be.

If a business wants to do that in this day and age, let them, and let them suffer the consequences, but from the market, not the government.

Racism is something we have to deal with as a free society, as long as the government is not involved in it. same for any other ism.

 

[martybegan]

[

I'll say it...if you own private property...that is a business, which is actually private,property...you should be,able,to run that business,however you want, serving or not serving anyone you want....

the thing is....the government cannot mandate discrimination...that is where the problem came in in the past...the free market will overcome discrimination in private businesses..

For example...the bakers and caterers and photographers who refused to help in gay weddings...there were others who gladly served those customers...right? That is how the free market works...

Now in the days when the democrats were discriminating against blacks...they used the power of government to force all businesses to do it...so there wasn't a way around it in the free market because the free market was controlled by the government...

Free Markets don't cure anything but the insatiable greed of the rich.

And, no, those bakers and photographers can only have businesses because we have the government infrastructure to support them. Otherwise, they'd get robbed every day.

Dumbest argument ever. So because they rely like the rest of us on police protection that allows the government to direct everything they can do?

What if a health inspector decides all donuts are bad for you? does he get to close the bakery down if they sell donuts?

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

The part where it isn't a free ride to disobey laws you don't like.

But we don't even need to go that far. These owners are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. BUt they don't have a right to refuse service to gays through their business. Their business is not an "establishment of religion", nor does it have religious beliefs.

You are still restricting free exercise thereof.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

They can and do, they just can't get a government marriage license. Human sacrifice involves a homicide, which is a crime in and of itself, even if a person does it willingly because of laws against suicide.

Try harder with your arguments next time.