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

[JoeB131]

how is not doing business with someone "treating them like crap"?

the only one treating people like crap are the ones trying to punish someone for not doing business with them with punitive damages.

why exactly do you want people you claim are hostile to homosexuals to be forced to take their money? I know if there was someone who was hostile to me, the last thing I would want to so is give them my money. I'd rather do business with someone who is friendly.

isn't the fact that they won't get the money punishment enough. Or are natural consequences not something that you even consider?

No, I would not consider allowing bigotry as a business practice to be allowed. Not for gays, not for blacks, not even for Mormons.

I find it amusing that Mormons, who were pretty much chased from one end of the country to the other for their weird marriage practices, are the ones screaming the loudest for the ability to discriminate on the basis of marriage.

Businesses have to conform with business laws. If I have to do business with you, you need to follow the laws and provide the services you offered. Period.

This is not complicated, dude.

 

[JoeB131]

using government to force your will on people is violence. Which is precisely why government needs to be limited. To prevent people from forcing their will in people unjustly.

as long as you keep using violence to force your way you create divisions among the people. No one wins

But people force their will on each other all the time. As Sarte said, "Hell is other People".

I mean, shit, dude, I'd love to be able to drive 80 miles an hour through a school zone while talking on my cell phone, but those freedom hating moms just won't let me do that.

 

[JoeB131]

real rights don't impose an affirmative duty on others

this does

therefore I believe the law is wrong and should be ended. you should have an absolute right to serve or not serve whom you please

Well, no, you shouldn't.

Here's the thing. As a wise man said, "you didn't build that". Businesses exist because all of us pay the taxes and support the infrastructure and laws that allow them to do business. We work for the other businesses that provide the goods and services that make your business possible.

Which means if one of us walks into your business with perfectly good money and wants to buy your goods or services, you do NOT have the right to say, "We don't serve your kind here!"

and that's reasonable and fair.

 

[BlackSand]

Here's the thing. As a wise man said, "you didn't build that".

That same wise man also said that "if you liked your doctor or your healthcare plan, you could keep it" ... Which was just as much the same bullshit he thought some American people were stupid enough to believe.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing. As a wise man said, "you didn't build that".

That same wise man also said that "if you liked your doctor or your healthcare plan, you could keep it" ... Which was just as much the same bullshit he thought some American people were stupid enough to believe.

.

I still have the same Health Care Plan I had in 2010.

As opposed to prior to that, where my health care plan changed 10 times due to either changes in job or changes in carriers by companies trying to save a few bucks buying crappier plans.

Do try to stay on topic, okay?

 

[Seawytch]

But it is not legal to discriminate against a group, or an individual, so long as that group or individual has not committed a crime.

Bullshit. I do it every day, mostly because people aren't willing to pay the price for services that we choose to charge. But sometimes for other reasons. Note my previous post about refusing service because someone was, in my personal judgement, an asshole.

Refusing service because someone is an asshole is perfectly legal. Refusing service because someone is black, Muslim or from Syria is a violation of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some states and cities have added additional protections and you can't refuse to serve someone who is a woman, gay, fat, short, etc.

 

[Seawytch]

What reason, what sane legal reason would anyone have to treat them differently from any other American citizen?

Because the bible says so!


How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

 

[BlackSand]

Here's the thing. As a wise man said, "you didn't build that".

That same wise man also said that "if you liked your doctor or your healthcare plan, you could keep it" ... Which was just as much the same bullshit he thought some American people were stupid enough to believe.

.

I still have the same Health Care Plan I had in 2010.

As opposed to prior to that, where my health care plan changed 10 times due to either changes in job or changes in carriers by companies trying to save a few bucks buying crappier plans.

Do try to stay on topic, okay?

So I guess you are still volunteering for the "stupid enough to believe" group.

You wouldn't even qualify for the statement you responded to because you shot down the "if you like your plan" in your following comment. What an absolute dumbass, and you thought you actually making a decent point.

.

 

[Seawytch]

And I still have to ask, how stupid and childish are faggots that they want to FORCE people to take their money?

I go into a business and they don't treat me like I'm the most important person in the world, I carry my debit card on out of there and find somewhere that does.

I don't financially reward people who don't like me.

Stupid fags.

Yup...just like the stupid Kikes and N words, huh bigot?

Public Accommodation laws have been "on the books" at a Federal Level since 1964, bigot.

 

[BlackSand]

Yup...just like the stupid Kikes and N words, huh bigot?

Public Accommodation laws have been "on the books" at a Federal Level since 1964, bigot.

The Public Accomidation laws are controlled at the state level and not all states identify LBGT's as a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's being a protected class.

I am not arguing for or against the laws ... You just need to re-examine your blanket statements that are incorrect or don't apply.

.

 

[80zephyr]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public. 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't generally accepted as legally valid reasoning.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

Thanks.

Mark

The 14th Amendment. Everyone is treated equally under the law.

Also, when the business owner applies and receives a business license they agree to comply with all state and federal laws that govern business.

Then there's our equal rights and civil rights laws that say that if you do business with the public you must do it with ALL the public. A business owner can't pick and choose who they sell to.

Then there's also our discrimination laws. Specifically discrimination against a person's sex. That business owner denied those people their services because one of them is of the wrong sex according to the business owner. Which is very illegal according to our sexual discrimination laws.

Just suppose you live in a small town and there's only one place in town that performs wedding ceremonies. There isn't another place to get married within at least 100 miles. When you go there the owner of the establishment denies you that ceremony just because of our sex. Will you allow them to break the law and discriminate against you? Or will you do what real Americans do and stand up for your rights?

If the 14th states everyone has to be treated equally under the law, then forcing a conscientious person with religious convictions to serve for a gay wedding is NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

Do you understand that?

Also, when applying for a business license, it is illegal to take away a persons rights as a condition of doing business. So that argument is a non sequitur.

Mark

 

[martybegan]

Here's the thing. As a wise man said, "you didn't build that".

That same wise man also said that "if you liked your doctor or your healthcare plan, you could keep it" ... Which was just as much the same bullshit he thought some American people were stupid enough to believe.

.

I still have the same Health Care Plan I had in 2010.

As opposed to prior to that, where my health care plan changed 10 times due to either changes in job or changes in carriers by companies trying to save a few bucks buying crappier plans.

Do try to stay on topic, okay?

JoeBlow gets his, and fuck everyone else.

 

[Seawytch]

Yup...just like the stupid Kikes and N words, huh bigot?

Public Accommodation laws have been "on the books" at a Federal Level since 1964, bigot.

The Public Accomidation laws are controlled at the state level and not all states identify LBGT's as a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's being a protected class.

I am not arguing for or against the laws ... You just need to re-examine your blanket statements that are incorrect or don't apply.

.

No shit Sherlock...If You've been reading the thread AT ALL, I've said that over and over again...that some states have expanded the list of those protected. To suddenly call PA laws "tyranny" because they ALSO protect gays in some places (I even provided a link to those places in an early post) is stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

So I guess you are still volunteering for the "stupid enough to believe" group.

You wouldn't even qualify for the statement you responded to because you shot down the "if you like your plan" in your following comment. What an absolute dumbass, and you thought you actually making a decent point.

Actually, I did make a decent point. My plan hasn't c hanged. We stopped having t hose annual meetings where HR tells us how our health care plan is going to suck a little more than it did the year before.

 

[Seawytch]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public. 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't generally accepted as legally valid reasoning.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

Thanks.

Mark

The 14th Amendment. Everyone is treated equally under the law.

Also, when the business owner applies and receives a business license they agree to comply with all state and federal laws that govern business.

Then there's our equal rights and civil rights laws that say that if you do business with the public you must do it with ALL the public. A business owner can't pick and choose who they sell to.

Then there's also our discrimination laws. Specifically discrimination against a person's sex. That business owner denied those people their services because one of them is of the wrong sex according to the business owner. Which is very illegal according to our sexual discrimination laws.

Just suppose you live in a small town and there's only one place in town that performs wedding ceremonies. There isn't another place to get married within at least 100 miles. When you go there the owner of the establishment denies you that ceremony just because of our sex. Will you allow them to break the law and discriminate against you? Or will you do what real Americans do and stand up for your rights?

If the 14th states everyone has to be treated equally under the law, then forcing a conscientious person with religious convictions to serve for a gay wedding is NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

Do you understand that?

Also, when applying for a business license, it is illegal to take away a persons rights as a condition of doing business. So that argument is a non sequitur.

Mark

Making a business adhere to the business laws of the locality in which he opened a business is not treating him differently.

The bible justified slavery and anti miscegenation. Should there have been a religious exemption?

 

[BlackSand]

Yup...just like the stupid Kikes and N words, huh bigot?

Public Accommodation laws have been "on the books" at a Federal Level since 1964, bigot.

The Public Accomidation laws are controlled at the state level and not all states identify LBGT's as a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's being a protected class.

I am not arguing for or against the laws ... You just need to re-examine your blanket statements that are incorrect or don't apply.

.

No shit Sherlock...If You've been reading the thread AT ALL, I've said that over and over again...that some states have expanded the list of those protected. To suddenly call PA laws "tyranny" because they ALSO protect gays in some places (I even provided a link to those places in an early post) is stupid.

You stated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over and over again ... And it did not apply to sexual orientation. You also stated Public Accommodation Laws are "on the books" at the Federal level and they aren't.

Keep trying to crawfish ... And I will start the crab boil.

.

 

[80zephyr]

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

Public accommodation laws, which have been around since the 60s, disagree.

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

This time its different. Homosexuality is a sin, according to the bible. Being "black" wasn't.

Mark

If you're a christian then why are you quoting the Tora? The old testament is jewish faith. The new testament is the christian faith. jesus never said one word about homosexuality. In fact, jesus hung out with 12 men, never married and never had kids.

The old testament says to not eat pork or shellfish, or not wear clothes made from 2 different fabrics or to not wear glasses. The old testament also says that life starts when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. Yet christians insist that the bible says life starts at conception. So if you want to use the old testament to discriminate against gay people then you better be ready to believe that life starts with when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. You better not eat shellfish, don't wear glasses and don't eat pork.

If you want to follow the Tora then convert and become jewish. If you want to remain christian then you should follow the christian gospel. Not the jewish one.

jesus said that you should sell everything you have and give the money to the poor. When did you do that? jesus said that you're supposed to feed those who are hungry and clothe those who are cold. When did you do that? jesus said what you've done to the least of our brothers and sisters you've done to me. When did you do that? jesus also said not to judge anyone, that's the job of the christian god.

I find it very hypocritical of christians who pick and choose what parts of the christian bible they want to follow. Who also pick and choose what parts of the jewish gospels they follow.

I am not very religious, but I know that references to homosexuality exist in the new testament.

In Catholic religion, the old testament is used for history purposes only. Christ established the new testament which basically overrides the old testament.

BTW, I am not judging gays. They can do what they want. What I am against is them trying to normalize their lifestyle to the public. By forcing the rest of us to accept them, they are in actuality "judging" us.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And I still have to ask, how stupid and childish are faggots that they want to FORCE people to take their money?

I go into a business and they don't treat me like I'm the most important person in the world, I carry my debit card on out of there and find somewhere that does.

I don't financially reward people who don't like me.

Stupid fags.

You guys have created such an interesting narrative in your heads.

Nothing about this story includes any gay people trying to "force" this woman to host their weddings.

A lesbian couple tried to hire the place, and were refused - so they complained to the state, and had their wedding somewhere else.

They complained to the state. EXACTLY what we are posting about here.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And I still have to ask, how stupid and childish are faggots that they want to FORCE people to take their money?

I go into a business and they don't treat me like I'm the most important person in the world, I carry my debit card on out of there and find somewhere that does.

I don't financially reward people who don't like me.

Stupid fags.

You guys have created such an interesting narrative in your heads.

Nothing about this story includes any gay people trying to "force" this woman to host their weddings.

A lesbian couple tried to hire the place, and were refused - so they complained to the state, and had their wedding somewhere else.

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

 

[BlackSand]

So I guess you are still volunteering for the "stupid enough to believe" group.

You wouldn't even qualify for the statement you responded to because you shot down the "if you like your plan" in your following comment. What an absolute dumbass, and you thought you actually making a decent point.

Actually, I did make a decent point. My plan hasn't c hanged. We stopped having t hose annual meetings where HR tells us how our health care plan is going to suck a little more than it did the year before.

Your only point is that either you liked your plan and were able to keep it or you didn't like your plan and didn't qualify for the statement. For whatever reasons you may have kept your plan ... You indicated you didn't like your plan earlier.

Furthermore the statement made by the President didn't apply just to you(as hard as that may be for you to understand) ... And is generally accepted as being the biggest lie he has ever told.

.

.