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

[Quantum Windbag]

They couple rented the barn for their reception. At no time did anyone say they couldn't have the reception in the barn. Lots of gay couples had their reception in that barn. After renting the barn and finding out that there was no objection the couple said "we want to be married in your living room."

The owners of the farm disagree with you.

Sure they do, in spite of the fact that they said their only objection was having the wedding in their home.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just like the bakers and photographers...they could have gone somewhere else...but as long as there is one person who does not agree with their lifestyle on religious grounds...they will not stop...and they will punish them....like us or pay the consequences...

Either we have equal rights for all in this country or we should quit saying we do. Whether it's gays, blacks, women, or some religious group if you get turned away because of who you are, what you are, or how you worship you're gonna raise a stink about it. And rightly so.

Can I move into your house? If not, how the fuck do we have equal rights? Shouldn't I have access to everything you do if we are all equal?

See the fucking flaw in your position yet or are you going to rationalize away the fact that you are a hypocritical asshole?

You sound tense.

What can I say, idiots offend me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

or gay people can man the fuck up and stop trying to get people to accept their lifestyle and just tolerate it.

none of these things are public accommodations. Public accommodation is when you walk into a store to buy something, or stay at a hotel, or get on a mode of transport. A small business that is contracted out on a per use basis is not publicly accommodating anything.

What truly galls me is that this wasn't an outright denial, but a condition and still these assholes sued these people because their FEEEWINGS were hurt.

Um...they were not sued. Nice try.

Yet they were, hence the judgement against them.

Want to try another lie?

Nope...they did not sue...they reported the BUSINESS that the state then fined for.....breaking the law. Are you in support of businesses not following the law?

Keep telling yourself that.

While you are doing that feel free to explain how they were awarded money if they didn't actually file a lawsuit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government, and companies that do business with the government should be equal in all matters. People, especially people who provide services that are not necessities, and are contracted out should be able to refuse anyone they want to. The state is basically enforcing morality here, and its a morality that isn't agreed upon with an overriding majority.

The only resulting harm to the aggrieved parties is having to find another place to patronize and their feewings being injured. This isn't the South before the 60's where whole towns were divided, where separate was 100% unequal, and where government was enforcing the separation.

Let's use me as an example. I'm a private citizen, not a business owner of any sort. Two or three times every week I bake cookies and cupcakes for the apt community (we're a round building and facing inwards my unit and everyone else's feels very much like an enclosed micro-community with all the rec stuff on the interior like pool, tennis courts, etc.) I try to give em out to everyone who wants one, and have never said no if asked for one. But I don't offer them to everyone. Some people don't need any more cookies or cupcakes shall we say. But because I'm not selling them, nor operating a home-run business I can offer them or withhold them at will. I'd never say no though even to fat people (they know they're fat, it's their call.) But I"m fully within my rights to do so.

But if I ran a business, had a business license, was subject to health inspections and codes and laws, I'd expect to be fully under obligation to sell them to everyone regardless. If part of this business was a store I wouldn't be able to refuse service to people I didn't like if doing so violated their civil rights. As it is though, here in Missouri there are no equal rights for LGBT so presumedly I could. But if a state has such equality then you can't. Without looking I'm gonna assume New York state has such equality. So if you're running an actual business, your services or goods or accomodations must be available for everyone, simple as that. You want the tax breaks and all that goodies that goes with owening a legal business you gotta play by the state's rules.

No I do not, I am perfectly free to ignore the state laws, just like the people in Feguson who loot the stores.

That, dear idiot, is called free will.

Well, it won't be free when you get fined.

Read my signature and realize that you are saying something stupid to someone who understands what the fuck he is talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's funny how the liberals thinks it's okay for a bank to not do business with a gun dealer. The bank closed accounts, but a religious person cannot cannot choose the same type of a decision for their business. Can I say hypocrite?

I have a big problem with a bank closing an acct just because a business is a gun dealer. However, that being said.....banks have the freedom to not RENEW loans with businesses they feel are a financial risk....as long as they can document such.

Damn, I thought your last post was stupid. Perhaps you should consider educating yourself on why the banks are refusing to do business with people that have excellent credit ratings because of Operation Choke Point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone really think a homo bar would be forced to accommodate a private party for the Westboro Baptist church?

They should give it a try.

I agree. The law will be on their side....just like the law is on the side of the lesbian couple in the OP case.

Actually, unless the bar regularly host provate parties for members of the public, it wouldn't. Even then, it would depend on which state they are in, but feel free to posture like you understand what you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's funny how the liberals thinks it's okay for a bank to not do business with a gun dealer. The bank closed accounts, but a religious person cannot cannot choose the same type of a decision for their business. Can I say hypocrite?

I have a big problem with a bank closing an acct just because a business is a gun dealer. However, that being said.....banks have the freedom to not RENEW loans with businesses they feel are a financial risk....as long as they can document such.

Yes, SunTrust closed several accounts i'm talking checking accounts, credit cards everything on several pawn shops. Some had been customers for years. In greenville and Spartanburg south Carolina.

If it is as simple as you say....the gun dealers should sue them or at least report them to the state. That being said...does South Carolina have a law such as the one in New York? If they don't, the gun dealers have no legal recourse.

That might work, of the fucking federal government wasn't forcing them to do it.

Like I said, look up Operation Choke Point, the federal program that forces banks to drop businesses that are legal.

 

[bodecea]

Just to make it clear: This was not a "private home", or "occasionally rented out for weddings".

It's a full-time business.

Here's the website: Fall fun on the farm! | Saratoga Fall Family Fun, Pumpkin Picking, Cornfield MazeSaratoga Fall Family Fun, Pumpkin Picking, Cornfield Maze | Saratoga Fall Family Fun, Pumpkin Picking, Cornfield Maze

Just to be clear, your link mentions barn weddings and tent weddings, not weddings in the private house, which is what the couple says they were denied.

No, the couple says they were denied the right to have the ceremony there at all.

The only mention of it being in a "house" was made by the woman to justify why she denied them.

And we al know that lesbians never lie.

The article clearly stated that they were only denied access to the house. They were actually offered the opportunity to have the reception on the grounds, but they preferred to complain because they did not get exactly what they wanted, just like everyone else that thinks the government exist to force their opinions on other people. their feelings were hurt.

 

[bodecea]

Just like the bakers and photographers...they could have gone somewhere else...but as long as there is one person who does not agree with their lifestyle on religious grounds...they will not stop...and they will punish them....like us or pay the consequences...

Either we have equal rights for all in this country or we should quit saying we do. Whether it's gays, blacks, women, or some religious group if you get turned away because of who you are, what you are, or how you worship you're gonna raise a stink about it. And rightly so.

Can I move into your house? If not, how the fuck do we have equal rights? Shouldn't I have access to everything you do if we are all equal?

See the fucking flaw in your position yet or are you going to rationalize away the fact that you are a hypocritical asshole?

You sound tense.

What can I say, idiots offend me.

So..this is a 24/7...can't get away from yourself kind of thing. My condolences.

 

[bodecea]

or gay people can man the fuck up and stop trying to get people to accept their lifestyle and just tolerate it.

none of these things are public accommodations. Public accommodation is when you walk into a store to buy something, or stay at a hotel, or get on a mode of transport. A small business that is contracted out on a per use basis is not publicly accommodating anything.

What truly galls me is that this wasn't an outright denial, but a condition and still these assholes sued these people because their FEEEWINGS were hurt.

Um...they were not sued. Nice try.

Yet they were, hence the judgement against them.

Want to try another lie?

Nope...they did not sue...they reported the BUSINESS that the state then fined for.....breaking the law. Are you in support of businesses not following the law?

Keep telling yourself that.

While you are doing that feel free to explain how they were awarded money if they didn't actually file a lawsuit.

Ok, let's pretend you are correct for a moment. Who was their lawyer in this "lawsuit"? What civil court heard their "lawsuit"? What were the findings of the jury in this "lawsuit"? That should all be part of public record. Prove your case, sweetheart.

 

[bodecea]

Does anyone really think a homo bar would be forced to accommodate a private party for the Westboro Baptist church?

They should give it a try.

I agree. The law will be on their side....just like the law is on the side of the lesbian couple in the OP case.

Actually, unless the bar regularly host provate parties for members of the public, it wouldn't. Even then, it would depend on which state they are in, but feel free to posture like you understand what you are talking about.

I know perfectly well what I am talking about. You, however, seem to be getting a tad shrill. Is that what you do rather than actually take action?

 

[bodecea]

Are you talking about the website that repeatedly mentions barn and tent weddings, but never once mentions an indoor venue like the house?

You really should pay attention to details before you try to declare yourself the victor in an argument that you barely comprehend.

Irony!

The Giffords live in the barn. The same barn they advertise for indoor weddings.

You really should pay attention to details before you try to declare yourself the victor in an argument that you barely comprehend.

They live in the barn?

Why the fuck would they do that when their is a house on the property?

Poor QW. Poor poor QW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Interested in the facts of the case?


Here is the facts of the case and the ruling -->> http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf


>>>>

 

[Pete7469]

Eerily reminiscent of the heavy handed authoritarianism you'd see in the old Soviet Union.

Except the soviets didn't like queers either.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Carrying this out to its logical conclusion, a gay man will be able to sue a straight male if they refuse to marry them. Stopping discrimination will be the justification.

I'd love to see the "logic" that led you to that "conclusion"...

As would I.

Impossible. There is no logic to how the Left reacts to things. I'm just reporting how they think.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[martybegan]

>

Interested in the facts of the case?


Here is the facts of the case and the ruling -->> http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf


>>>>

Again, AWWWW THEIR FEEEEEWWWINGS WERE HURT.

They haz a sadz.

Assholes.

 

[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?