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

[Nosmo King]

Are you trying to convert homosexuals? What is it on this issue you want to change?

What silly notion gives you the idea I would try to convert homosexuals ... Convert them to what? I want people to desire earning respect from one another ... And to understand that requires more than demanding it.

.

How does a homosexual patron of a wedding chapel, photographer, florist, baker or any other businesses open to the public demand tolerance? They come to these merchants and vendors with money in their hands. They come as American citizens and taxpayers. They come as serving military personnel, as veterans. They come sober, mature, free.

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

They do not want to be part of the enabling of the dilussional

Delusional? In your opinion, or are you saying homosexuality is, by its nature, delusional?

What studies can you cite backing up a claim of delusional? What defines 'delusional'? Is, in your opinion, homosexuality a mental condition? Where do the experts come down on that?

What studies?

Observing a group that denies reality requires no studies. Do you need studies to understand that no child has ever been born from a same sex coupling? Do you need a study to understand it takes opposing sex couplings to create human life?

If you need studies to show the obvious, you are either one of the delusional or looking for a reason for your enabling.

There are plenty of elderly couples who get married. They cannot produce human life. Are they delusional too?

Does your outlook on human sexuality begin and end with conception alone?

 

[80zephyr]

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

Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.

The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.

Mark

Actually no.

When a person applies for and accepts a business license they've agreed to follow all state and federal laws that govern business. So they signed their right to discriminate away when they signed the forms for that business license.

If you want to do business legally in America you have to follow the law. A business owner can't pick and choose what laws they want to follow and they can't use religion to excuse breaking the law. Otherwise we would still have "whites only" signs everywhere.

The business owners who discriminate against one portion of the public have broken the law, violated the constitution and violated the contract they signed with the state that allows them to do business legally with the public. That business license and the papers filed to get it are contracts between the business owner and the state.

If they don't want to do business with all of the public, they should expect to accept the consequences of their crime.

Sorry, you are incorrect. While they do sign away their right to discriminate, they most certainly do not sign away their religious freedom.

As for "following the law", I want to know why its OK for a business to post a "no guns allowed" sign on the door? The right to bear and carry has been upheld almost everywhere now, and business's still regulate who they let in.

Do you want that to change as well?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, you are incorrect. While they do sign away their right to discriminate, they most certainly do not sign away their religious freedom.

As for "following the law", I want to know why its OK for a business to post a "no guns allowed" sign on the door? The right to bear and carry has been upheld almost everywhere now, and business's still regulate who they let in.

Do you want that to change as well?

I don't want some crazy asshole starting a bar fight with a gun and I'm not sure why you do, either.

 

[JoeB131]

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

But he does that all the time.

There are a whole lot of crazy laws in the bible that most businesses don't follow.

How many businesses are open on Sunday? That's actually breaking a Commandment!!!! But they happily make an exception for that.

 

[80zephyr]

Sorry, you are incorrect. While they do sign away their right to discriminate, they most certainly do not sign away their religious freedom.

As for "following the law", I want to know why its OK for a business to post a "no guns allowed" sign on the door? The right to bear and carry has been upheld almost everywhere now, and business's still regulate who they let in.

Do you want that to change as well?

I don't want some crazy asshole starting a bar fight with a gun and I'm not sure why you do, either.

What I want is not the question here. What are my rights to do so are.

Mark

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Or that he trusted the insurance companies to keep their word they wouldn't fuck with people if we promised them not to institute a public option.

Which they totally did anyway.

 

[80zephyr]

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

But he does that all the time.

There are a whole lot of crazy laws in the bible that most businesses don't follow.

How many businesses are open on Sunday? That's actually breaking a Commandment!!!! But they happily make an exception for that.

You are making a blanket statement to defend a position. Is it possible for a business to run within the guidelines of a religion? If so, just the POSSIBILITY of such makes your point moot.

Mark

 

[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.

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.

.

Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.

So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?

 

[BlackSand]

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.

Or that he trusted the insurance companies to keep their word they wouldn't fuck with people if we promised them not to institute a public option.

Which they totally did anyway.

It was a lie either way ... And the architect has come out and said they misled the American people on purpose because otherwise the stupid people wouldn't support the law.

They think you are stupid and you keep supporting them ... That in itself indicates you may apply.

.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

Your religion does not give you the right to violate the laws of the locality, period.

These assholes couldn't do it and new assholes can't either.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

 

[bodecea]

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?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

But it is a choice, is it not? Just like the Muslim taxi drivers who said it was against their religion to accept passengers who had pets or alcohol. It is a choice...to do the job your business license says to...or find something more compatable with your religious restrictions.

 

[bodecea]

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

But he does that all the time.

There are a whole lot of crazy laws in the bible that most businesses don't follow.

How many businesses are open on Sunday? That's actually breaking a Commandment!!!! But they happily make an exception for that.

Exactly. How many non-christians has that place hosted wedding for? How many previously divorced people has that business hosted weddings for? How many obese (sin of gluttony) people has that business hosted weddings for? How many pagan weddings has that business hosted weddings for?

 

[bodecea]

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

Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.

The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.

Mark

Actually no.

When a person applies for and accepts a business license they've agreed to follow all state and federal laws that govern business. So they signed their right to discriminate away when they signed the forms for that business license.

If you want to do business legally in America you have to follow the law. A business owner can't pick and choose what laws they want to follow and they can't use religion to excuse breaking the law. Otherwise we would still have "whites only" signs everywhere.

The business owners who discriminate against one portion of the public have broken the law, violated the constitution and violated the contract they signed with the state that allows them to do business legally with the public. That business license and the papers filed to get it are contracts between the business owner and the state.

If they don't want to do business with all of the public, they should expect to accept the consequences of their crime.

Sorry, you are incorrect. While they do sign away their right to discriminate, they most certainly do not sign away their religious freedom.

As for "following the law", I want to know why its OK for a business to post a "no guns allowed" sign on the door? The right to bear and carry has been upheld almost everywhere now, and business's still regulate who they let in.

Do you want that to change as well?

Mark

Did you know there is a difference between restricting a certain BEHAVIOR for everyone (non-discrimination) and restricting a certain group because of who they are?

 

[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.

.

Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.

So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?

Title II doesn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's ...

Title II

"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]"

.

 

[bodecea]

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

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

 

[80zephyr]

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?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

Your religion does not give you the right to violate the laws of the locality, period.

These assholes couldn't do it and new assholes can't either.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

This is a new situation. It is absolutely clear that religions have viewed homosexuality as a sin for a long time. Different situations require different solutions.

If the left really wants to piss off the American people, force religions to cater to homosexuals.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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.

.

Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.

So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?

Title II doesn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's ...

Title II

"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]"

.

They didn't want the Civil Rights Act to count for women either when it came out. :/

 

[bodecea]

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?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

Your religion does not give you the right to violate the laws of the locality, period.

These assholes couldn't do it and new assholes can't either.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

This is a new situation. It is absolutely clear that religions have viewed homosexuality as a sin for a long time. Different situations require different solutions.

If the left really wants to piss off the American people, force religions to cater to homosexuals.

Mark

However, that was a BUSINESS, not a religion. A very clear distinction.

 

[80zephyr]

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?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

But it is a choice, is it not? Just like the Muslim taxi drivers who said it was against their religion to accept passengers who had pets or alcohol. It is a choice...to do the job your business license says to...or find something more compatable with your religious restrictions.

Realistically, it is NOT a choice. Telling someone he has to abide or go broke is...wrong. Especially since the Constitution guarantees him a right to religious freedom. Nowhere does it say "except if you run a business".

Mark