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

[mudwhistle]

The point of Obamacare is to cut down on people getting what the framers called unnecessary treatment through extremely high deductibles. As J. Gruber stated, if our out of pocket expenses go up that will curb treatment costs. So the price of healthcare goes up instead of down, exposing another lie by the Obama Administration. But you don't care if he's giving you the shaft cuz he loves the geys.

I'm not getting the shaft at all. Sad to hear that you are. My health care hasn't changed in the least. Sad to hear that yours has.

Personally I think you're lying, because every policy had to change to adhere to new ACA guidelines.

Well, I'm not having any problems with our TriCare Prime. I'm sorry to hear that you are having issues, tho.

I had a Cardiac Catheterization done last year, this is just a test mind you, that cost me $12,000.00. They found nothing wrong. I have no issues. Still cost me $12k to find that out.

Maybe because we've been lucky enough to not need much from them....just daughter's asthma issues.

You won't know until you start having health issues. Then they give you the bad news.

My Tricare is paid put of my pension. My Aetna is paid out of my paycheck. Every year it goes up in price, but before Obama it stayed roughly the same. We've had a pay freeze for 6years, so I make less now than I did when he took office because of higher deductions by the government even though I've gone up a couple of steps.

Expect a real eye opening when you go to use your insurance. They cover things like sexual-reassignment surgery now, but some of the essentials are more expensive.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK- But what about my question? What is your educated 'guess' as to why someone would just simply not take their business elsewhere? My guess is they are paid shills to bring their 'plight' to the forefront.

If they really wanted what they protest, they would of succeeded already elsewhere

-Geaux

Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.

If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?

Mark

No. It protects the religious from discrimination. I am forced, by federal law to serve crazy eyed Christians in all 50 states. They only have to serve me in a few. Change 'em all or STFU.

Hi Seawytch
trying to come up with the equivalent for you
of what it is like to hire wedding services of people that forces them to attend
and PARTICIPATE in a gay wedding if they don't believe in that.

How about something like this:
A. what if you do not agree with Christianity,
but you are asked to write and deliver a speech praising Christianity
and pointing out the good practices, history and benefits of the outreach.
Do you have the right to turn down that business/job
because you feel someone else is more suited to do that, and you don't want it.

B. If someone was going to rent your land to kill cows and chickens as a demonstration
of the process, to make a revenge statement against PETA to be mean,
or film a porn movie where people are acting out rape, and you
don't agree with those activities. Do you have the right to turn
down business you prefer not to have on your property.

C. if someone wants to rent your private facility to
give a speech denying the Holocaust and defending their
beliefs they are the ones harassed by the jews, not the other way,
do you have the right to turn down that business and say no thanks
i'd rather not be associated with having supported this level of free speech.

those are just examples I threw together

can anyone else think of some that a normal person
might refuse and nobody would fault them for saying no thanks I'll pass!

Hi Strawman! If the service is not provided by the business, it cannot be required to be.

OK so what if the people did not agree to provide gay wedding services.
Where can you show me they ever agreed to do that type of service?

If you are going to say it's the same, then
sewing a man's suit is still sewing
sewing a woman's suit is still sewing

are you going to sue because someone wouldn't sew for one gender
but would sew for another?

NO YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE IT DOESNT FIT THE AGENDA

Seawytch I think it is clear that these lawsuits arise because of a
political agenda concerning gay rights specifically, just like
when an atheist sues over a cross it isn't about the principle
it's about the specific opposition with Christianity.

That is what is motivating all this.

Christians have rejected homosexuality in the past,
so the "backlash" is now they are being targeted and sued.

Are you really going to say it isn't because of backlash?
THAT'S the real issue of why this is coming up.

And the REAL problem with Marriage is that it is
underneath the State AT ALL. that is already a conflict
waiting to happen.

Before gay marriage came up, people AGREED to
mix church and state with marriage.

Only when disagreements over religion came up
did people realize they DON'T support the state
endorsing this or that.

Seawytch if people were REALLY about nondiscriminating
and NOT imposing, we'd take marriage completely out of the state
and keep it free and neutral.

Both sides are trying to defend and push THEIR views of
marriage through the state. Both sides are wrong
to impose and to abuse the govt to do so.

If it's wrong for one side,
it's wrong for the other.

Please be fair and recognize the
agenda on BOTH SIDES not just one.

 

[BlackSand]

You don't have the right to refuse service for "any" reason. There are very clear instances where you cannot refuse to serve.

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com

Like I explained to Bodecca ... The business is not required to provide you with a reason.

Anyone who wants to pursue the matter in court would have to establish the reason absent confirmation by the business owner. The burden of proof does not favor the plaintiff outside of flagrant disregard for civil rights.

.

 

[Redfish]

Just one question: Why would a gay couple want to do business with someone who does not approve of the gay lifestyle?

I will bet $500 that not one of our gay posters will answer truthfully.

 

[Gracie]

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone". I used it in my shop. Maybe things have changed. If so...I feel sorry for business owners.

If you had used that sign to refuse service to people based on race or religion, you'd have been breaking the law. Any business doing that would have been and still would be breaking the law.

I didn't use it against race or religion. I used it against belligerent, obnoxious assholes regardless of their faith or skin color. I own the business. I pay the taxes. I pay the rent. I have a right on who I choose to sell to or buy from. Come in drunk, loaded, screaming brats, nastiness, shoving people, and overall being an asshole, OUT you go.

But....you are not discriminating against a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of WHO THEY ARE....you are discriminating against disruptive customers....some black, some white, some male, some female, some gay, some straight, etc......right? Was the gay couple disruptive in the OP case?

Is eating sausage sandwiches in a mosque being disruptive or are they just hungry? Or they are doing it on purpose. Who knows. The point is, NOBODY should be FORCED to do business with someone that goes against their own principles. So a muslim opens a food cafe. Can the government FORCE them to sell pork sandwiches? What if someone demands and then sues because the muslim refuses and the government fines them because they said no...no pork will be served?

Same thing.

 

[Gracie]

Just one question: Why would a gay couple want to do business with someone who does not approve of the gay lifestyle?

I will bet $500 that not one of our gay posters will answer truthfully.

I'm guessing the REAL reason is not as innocent as its claimed. Exposure to the "cause", more likely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Yeah, what do they think, this is a free country or something?

They should just be glad that you're not marching them off to a death camp - because you will be - soon enough. (Unless good men stand up to evil - that is.)

 

[Gracie]

So...where is your example of any homosexuals being in a position to sue a black man's bar-b-que shack for refusal of service? How will we know if they would sue or not if we don't have examples to compare?

I didn't say they were going to sue the business ... I said they wouldn't sue the business. My point was that regardless of whether it is a business or a church ... It is the same people and same reason to deny a wedding as when they are in church.

I made the further point that they wouldn't sue the bar-b-que because it is owned by a black man. If they attempted to compare their homosexuality to the discrimination against blacks ... Well, I know the business owner and the district judge ... They would be laughed out of court.

Here ... There is no special state law for fining establishments that may deny hosting a same sex marriage. You can also post a sign here that reads ... "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without providing any reason".

.

If the business denied them service for being gay, why not?

And as for NOT suing a bar-b-que place because it's owned by a black man....what does that have to do with anything. If I walk into a business owned by ANYONE and they denied me service because I'm gay....you bet I would report it to the state business bureau.

How the sam hell would anyone know you are gay???? Do they ask before paying for the product?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I imagine a liberal would sell his/her/its principles for about $3. These folks kept theirs for a mere $13,000. An amount that could be restored within seconds were a fund-raiser to magically spring up.

I hope they refuse to pay.

And I hope decent people rally around them should the thugs attempt to collect.

 

[emilynghiem]

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone". I used it in my shop. Maybe things have changed. If so...I feel sorry for business owners.

If you had used that sign to refuse service to people based on race or religion, you'd have been breaking the law. Any business doing that would have been and still would be breaking the law.

I didn't use it against race or religion. I used it against belligerent, obnoxious assholes regardless of their faith or skin color. I own the business. I pay the taxes. I pay the rent. I have a right on who I choose to sell to or buy from. Come in drunk, loaded, screaming brats, nastiness, shoving people, and overall being an asshole, OUT you go.

But....you are not discriminating against a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of WHO THEY ARE....you are discriminating against disruptive customers....some black, some white, some male, some female, some gay, some straight, etc......right? Was the gay couple disruptive in the OP case?

Is eating sausage sandwiches in a mosque being disruptive or are they just hungry? Or they are doing it on purpose. Who knows. The point is, NOBODY should be FORCED to do business with someone that goes against their own principles. So a muslim opens a food cafe. Can the government FORCE them to sell pork sandwiches? What if someone demands and then sues because the muslim refuses and the government fines them because they said no...no pork will be served?

Same thing.

Oh, but if the govt does force a Christian business to provide abortifacient drugs against their beliefs,
and the Christians sue to defend their beliefs, suddenly they are bigots and trying to prevent women from equal access.

It's okay for an ATHEIST to sue to remove a cross from a public building because "it offends them"
because "they don't share the BELIEF that the cross REPRESENTS"
But if someone who doesn't BELIEVE that federal govt has the right to penalize the free choice of health care,
opposes mandates that not only OFFEND them but ACTIVELY FINE THEM
oh dear!
can't have that!

it's okay to abuse federal govt to impose beliefs about health care as a right
or gay marriage as a belief,
but NOT okay to defend equal views of FREE CHOICE of health care as a right
and traditional marriage as a belief.

only the beliefs that match your agenda are protected by law.

the other beliefs are bigoted and don't count as religious beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

I imagine a liberal would sell his/her/its principles for about $3. These folks kept theirs for a mere $13,000. An amount that could be restored within seconds were a fund-raiser to magically spring up.

I hope they refuse to pay.

And I hope decent people rally around them should the thugs attempt to collect.

I would support any fundraising effort to lend, invest or donate the money to pay off costs until this is settled.

What I should do is volunteer to form legal teams in every city/state
to post WAIVERS for businesses to ask customers to sign before contracting any services out.

And write out that the parties agree to MEDIATION and CONFLICT RESOLUTION
to resolve any disputes by consensus of both parties to prevent any legal action, burden or cost
to either party, and if conflicts cannot be resolved, they agree to dissolve the contract to the satisfaction of both parties (and any amount in dispute, the parties can agree to split the
difference and/or donate to a charity they both agree to support voluntarily as the beneficiary)

And if they can't sign that in advance, then don't accept their business
on the basis of not agreeing to mediation and consensus to prevent legal costs.

I've seen waivers online where if you don't agree to arbitration
then you aren't allowed to use that website or those services.
So why can't this be spelled out with mediation (or arbitration)
as the binding authority in place of any legal action, or else don't do business with each other.

 

[Gracie]

Kinda related, but in my local CraigsList, there is a petition going around that businesses that actually refuse MONEY to buy a product UNLESS you give them a savings card or store card or give them YOUR address, phone number OR email, should be drummed out of business. I agree.

Radio Shack tried that shit with me. I picked up my cash and said "keep your shit. I will buy elsewhere" and they groveled while backpedaling. I still left. If I go in now, they know NOT to ask me that again.

 

[Gracie]

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone". I used it in my shop. Maybe things have changed. If so...I feel sorry for business owners.

If you had used that sign to refuse service to people based on race or religion, you'd have been breaking the law. Any business doing that would have been and still would be breaking the law.

I didn't use it against race or religion. I used it against belligerent, obnoxious assholes regardless of their faith or skin color. I own the business. I pay the taxes. I pay the rent. I have a right on who I choose to sell to or buy from. Come in drunk, loaded, screaming brats, nastiness, shoving people, and overall being an asshole, OUT you go.

But....you are not discriminating against a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of WHO THEY ARE....you are discriminating against disruptive customers....some black, some white, some male, some female, some gay, some straight, etc......right? Was the gay couple disruptive in the OP case?

Is eating sausage sandwiches in a mosque being disruptive or are they just hungry? Or they are doing it on purpose. Who knows. The point is, NOBODY should be FORCED to do business with someone that goes against their own principles. So a muslim opens a food cafe. Can the government FORCE them to sell pork sandwiches? What if someone demands and then sues because the muslim refuses and the government fines them because they said no...no pork will be served?

Same thing.

Oh, but if the govt does force a Christian business to provide abortifacient drugs against their beliefs,
and the Christians sue to defend their beliefs, suddenly they are bigots and trying to prevent women from equal access.

It's okay for an ATHEIST to sue to remove a cross from a public building because "it offends them"
because "they don't share the BELIEF that the cross REPRESENTS"
But if someone who doesn't BELIEVE that federal govt has the right to penalize the free choice of health care,
opposes mandates that not only OFFEND them but ACTIVELY FINE THEM
oh dear!
can't have that!

it's okay to abuse federal govt to impose beliefs about health care as a right
or gay marriage as a belief,
but NOT okay to defend equal views of FREE CHOICE of health care as a right
and traditional marriage as a belief.

only the beliefs that match your agenda are protected by law.

the other beliefs are bigoted and don't count as religious beliefs.

The question is...if this christian place does not believe in birth control OR abortion drugs...why did the person choose that particular store? Agendas. Thats all it is in this current mess of who can do what, legally. AGENDAS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would support any fundraising effort to lend, invest or donate the money to pay off costs until this is settled.

Just as long as not one dime goes to the looters imposing the fine.

Millions in defense, not one cent in tribute.

What I should do is volunteer to form legal teams in every city/state
to post WAIVERS for businesses to ask customers to sign before contracting any services out.

And write out that the parties agree to MEDIATION and CONFLICT RESOLUTION
to resolve any disputes by consensus of both parties to prevent any legal action, burden or cost
to either party, and if conflicts cannot be resolved, they agree to dissolve the contract to the satisfaction of both parties (and any amount in dispute, the parties can agree to split the
difference and/or donate to a charity they both agree to support voluntarily as the beneficiary)

And if they can't sign that in advance, then don't accept their business
on the basis of not agreeing to mediation and consensus to prevent legal costs.

I've seen waivers online where if you don't agree to arbitration
then you aren't allowed to use that website or those services.
So why can't this be spelled out with mediation (or arbitration)
as the binding authority in place of any legal action, or else don't do business with each other.

I start a doctoral program in February - which means I won't be able to get involved in anything for the next few years.

But I will support causes like this monetarily.

 

[bodecea]

You don't have the right to refuse service for "any" reason. There are very clear instances where you cannot refuse to serve.

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com

Like I explained to Bodecca ... The business is not required to provide you with a reason.

Anyone who wants to pursue the matter in court would have to establish the reason absent confirmation by the business owner. The burden of proof does not favor the plaintiff outside of flagrant disregard for civil rights.

.

On this we are in agreement. However, let's remember the business owner in the OP case made it known that he denied service based on the sexuality of the couple.

I do not deny there are probably daily cases of business' denying service to gays, blacks, Muslims, Jews, handicapped, etc. but they are sly enough to NOT say it outloud.

 

[bodecea]

If you had used that sign to refuse service to people based on race or religion, you'd have been breaking the law. Any business doing that would have been and still would be breaking the law.

I didn't use it against race or religion. I used it against belligerent, obnoxious assholes regardless of their faith or skin color. I own the business. I pay the taxes. I pay the rent. I have a right on who I choose to sell to or buy from. Come in drunk, loaded, screaming brats, nastiness, shoving people, and overall being an asshole, OUT you go.

But....you are not discriminating against a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of WHO THEY ARE....you are discriminating against disruptive customers....some black, some white, some male, some female, some gay, some straight, etc......right? Was the gay couple disruptive in the OP case?

Is eating sausage sandwiches in a mosque being disruptive or are they just hungry? Or they are doing it on purpose. Who knows. The point is, NOBODY should be FORCED to do business with someone that goes against their own principles. So a muslim opens a food cafe. Can the government FORCE them to sell pork sandwiches? What if someone demands and then sues because the muslim refuses and the government fines them because they said no...no pork will be served?

Same thing.

Oh, but if the govt does force a Christian business to provide abortifacient drugs against their beliefs,
and the Christians sue to defend their beliefs, suddenly they are bigots and trying to prevent women from equal access.

It's okay for an ATHEIST to sue to remove a cross from a public building because "it offends them"
because "they don't share the BELIEF that the cross REPRESENTS"
But if someone who doesn't BELIEVE that federal govt has the right to penalize the free choice of health care,
opposes mandates that not only OFFEND them but ACTIVELY FINE THEM
oh dear!
can't have that!

it's okay to abuse federal govt to impose beliefs about health care as a right
or gay marriage as a belief,
but NOT okay to defend equal views of FREE CHOICE of health care as a right
and traditional marriage as a belief.

only the beliefs that match your agenda are protected by law.

the other beliefs are bigoted and don't count as religious beliefs.

The question is...if this christian place does not believe in birth control OR abortion drugs...why did the person choose that particular store? Agendas. Thats all it is in this current mess of who can do what, legally. AGENDAS.

If that christian place is denying EVERYONE a service, it is hardly discrimination, is it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You don't have the right to refuse service for "any" reason. There are very clear instances where you cannot refuse to serve.

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com

Like I explained to Bodecca ... The business is not required to provide you with a reason.

Anyone who wants to pursue the matter in court would have to establish the reason absent confirmation by the business owner. The burden of proof does not favor the plaintiff outside of flagrant disregard for civil rights.

.

True, but entirely irrelevant to this situation.

If the woman who owns the farm hadn't decided to make a stand and inform the lesbian couple as to exactly why she was refusing to host them, there wouldn't have been any problems.

 

[bodecea]

You don't have the right to refuse service for "any" reason. There are very clear instances where you cannot refuse to serve.

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com

Like I explained to Bodecca ... The business is not required to provide you with a reason.

Anyone who wants to pursue the matter in court would have to establish the reason absent confirmation by the business owner. The burden of proof does not favor the plaintiff outside of flagrant disregard for civil rights.

.

True, but entirely irrelevant to this situation.

If the woman who owns the farm hadn't decided to make a stand and inform the lesbian couple as to exactly why she was refusing to host them, there wouldn't have been any problems.

Exactly....hoisted on their own petard, so to speak.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So their freedom of religion must be trampled rather than tell the gay couple to simply go have their wedding somewhere else? Why would any couple want to have their wedding at a place that did not want to host it? Why would anyone do such a thing? Answer: To be mean and spiteful to people who disapprove of your conduct.

And there is nothing "dark and twisted" about not wanting to host a ceremony that you find morally offensive. This is not a "version" of Christianity. The Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is unnatural and deviant. So if you believe the Bible, you're not going to want to host a ceremony that you believe is offensive to God and contrary to Bible doctrine.

 

[emilynghiem]

I didn't use it against race or religion. I used it against belligerent, obnoxious assholes regardless of their faith or skin color. I own the business. I pay the taxes. I pay the rent. I have a right on who I choose to sell to or buy from. Come in drunk, loaded, screaming brats, nastiness, shoving people, and overall being an asshole, OUT you go.

But....you are not discriminating against a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of WHO THEY ARE....you are discriminating against disruptive customers....some black, some white, some male, some female, some gay, some straight, etc......right? Was the gay couple disruptive in the OP case?

Is eating sausage sandwiches in a mosque being disruptive or are they just hungry? Or they are doing it on purpose. Who knows. The point is, NOBODY should be FORCED to do business with someone that goes against their own principles. So a muslim opens a food cafe. Can the government FORCE them to sell pork sandwiches? What if someone demands and then sues because the muslim refuses and the government fines them because they said no...no pork will be served?

Same thing.

Oh, but if the govt does force a Christian business to provide abortifacient drugs against their beliefs,
and the Christians sue to defend their beliefs, suddenly they are bigots and trying to prevent women from equal access.

It's okay for an ATHEIST to sue to remove a cross from a public building because "it offends them"
because "they don't share the BELIEF that the cross REPRESENTS"
But if someone who doesn't BELIEVE that federal govt has the right to penalize the free choice of health care,
opposes mandates that not only OFFEND them but ACTIVELY FINE THEM
oh dear!
can't have that!

it's okay to abuse federal govt to impose beliefs about health care as a right
or gay marriage as a belief,
but NOT okay to defend equal views of FREE CHOICE of health care as a right
and traditional marriage as a belief.

only the beliefs that match your agenda are protected by law.

the other beliefs are bigoted and don't count as religious beliefs.

The question is...if this christian place does not believe in birth control OR abortion drugs...why did the person choose that particular store? Agendas. Thats all it is in this current mess of who can do what, legally. AGENDAS.

If that christian place is denying EVERYONE a service, it is hardly discrimination, is it?

Tell that to Hobby Lobby that had to sue in Court to defend its request to be
exempted from those sections of the federal mandate that violated the beliefs of the owners.

And yes, many people made the argument that a corporation is not a person with religious freedom.