Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

[BlackSand]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

.

Segregationists claimed religious beliefs as did slave owners.

Homosexuals dictating religious doctrine is the same as blacks in slavery?

.

 

[Avorysuds]

The butthurt is strong in republicunts in this thread!

Not as strong as the ass fucking Republicans gave Obama and Dems in the midterms.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a fucking cowardly twat.

No it is not....it is the state fining a business based on a law on the books......just like a business might be fined for safety code violations. This doesn't even eliminate the couple's ability to sue on their own for discrimination if they wished to.........but I'm not hearing about this "overly litigious" gay couple doing so. Have you?

They complain, the state goes to some judiciary authority to press "charges", and the people are punished. Its just like suing someone, except you get the executive branch of the government to do your dirty work for you.

They complained, they set the wheels in motion, they are the assholes.

Nope, they didn't do nothing.

 

[bodecea]

The farm will no longer host weddings. NO same sex couple can get married there. For friends and those known personally, the farm will still host weddings.

Oh well. Like that city that filled in their community pool with concrete rather than allow blacks in.

 

[bodecea]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

So your previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts has no bearing on the discussion ... Much like most of your arguments?

.

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

 

[martybegan]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

a business is a person.One does not lose their own civil rights just to sell a product or a service. It is in fact THEIR Civil rights that are being violated by the government.

The laws are being abused by litigious twats like you.

 

[BlackSand]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

 

[Mr. H.]

This is the "America" that was ushered in with Obama's first coronation six years ago.

Before His grand entrance, a Gay couple would simply shop elsewhere.

Today, a Gay couple is still simply a Gay couple. What's changed?

"Acceptance" is no longer a two-way street. Respect of views and values, morals and mores, is now a one-way street. They have become mutually exclusive. To not participate based upon beliefs, religious or otherwise, now constitutes a "war". A war on women, a war on gays, a war on.... fill in the blank.

Obama has given marching papers to to his minions of all stripes and they are His foot soldiers. They are His fodder in these imaginary "wars".

It's like reverse McCarthyism run rampant.

Fuck this bullshit.

If people aren't free to be bigots to their fellow citizens, are any of us truly free?

Is this really being a "bigot" or simply exercising your own beliefs? Just because you're on that train doesn't mean I have to buy a ticket.

 

[bodecea]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

So are you saying getting married at Woolworth's lunch counter is a civil right? Or are you suggesting that the "different religion" part of your statement doesn't really apply if that religion doesn't support your ideas?

.

Ok, you seem to be confused. We were referring to civil rights and the "rights of business owners." If you want to limit the discussion to the right to civilly marry as opposed to generic "rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner" you should have specified as such......
So...is this just to be a discussion on the right to marry? or is it a discussion on the rights of business owners?

 

[TheOldSchool]

The butthurt is strong in republicunts in this thread!

Not as strong as the ass fucking Republicans gave Obama and Dems in the midterms.

Yet republicans continue to bitch and whine about everything

 

[SwimExpert]

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

Are you seriously so fucked up in the head that you think it's a good thing for the government to fine people for the way they practice their religion in their own fucking home?

 

[mudwhistle]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

A law that is still up for review according to the article.

Bring this to enough people's attention and it goes up the line. Maybe an unnecessary fight over freedom of religion.

Yup, dem geys really want to win people over, don't they?

 

[BlackSand]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

So are you saying getting married at Woolworth's lunch counter is a civil right? Or are you suggesting that the "different religion" part of your statement doesn't really apply if that religion doesn't support your ideas?

.

Ok, you seem to be confused. We were referring to civil rights and the "rights of business owners." If you want to limit the discussion to the right to civilly marry as opposed to generic "rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner" you should have specified as such......
So...is this just to be a discussion on the right to marry? or is it a discussion on the rights of business owners?

Again ... Do you think the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines and discriminate against individuals due to their religious beliefs?

If you cannot, or don't want to answer the question doesn't make me confused.

.

 

[bodecea]

The butthurt is strong in republicunts in this thread!

Not as strong as the ass fucking Republicans gave Obama and Dems in the midterms.

Not really the topic here, is it?

 

[bodecea]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

"to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs"? No. But this is not what happened. You DO know that, right?

 

[bodecea]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

A law that is still up for review according to the article.

Bring this to enough people's attention and it goes up the line. Maybe an unnecessary fight over freedom of religion.

Yup, dem geys really want to win people over, don't they?

I believe it has been stated that PA laws such as this one in NY have been judicially reviewed and found to be Constitutional. If not yet, then let the process proceed. If that NY law is found to be unConstitutional, then by all means, the fine should be returned and all fines from that law be returned and the law stricken from the books as unenforcible.

 

[koshergrl]

On to ignore goes Hazl, and Oldschool.

I just don't see the point in subjecting myself to reading the disgusting rants they consider "discussion".

 

[bodecea]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

Civil Rights doesn't mean forcing others to obey you regardless of your demands.

If my demands are above and beyond what the business offers to other citizens, you would be correct. But if citizens A get this business service and then citizens B do not based on the business owners discrimination.....then the business has broken the PA law.

 

[bodecea]

On to ignore goes Hazl.

Should we alert the media?