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

[Dana7360]

We have laws against sexual discrimination. The civil rights act makes sexual discrimination illegal.

Homosexuals are being denied the marriage ceremony by some people because one person is of the wrong sex.

That's against our civil rights laws. It's also against the laws that makes sexual discrimination illegal.

I'm not homosexual but if I was and lived in an area that didn't include gays in the PA laws, I would still sue that business owner on the grounds of sexual discrimination and I would win. Since I'm a bitch and hate discrimination in any form, I would also have financially destroyed the business owner and the business. I would sue that business for as much money as I possibly could and made sure that the owner was so financially destroyed, they wouldn't be able to recover. I have no sympathy for people who believe they're special and laws don't apply to them.

Guess what? You have absolutely no legal leg to stand on.

None of the laws you stated identify sexual orientation as a protected class. If you would like proceed with measures to include sexual orientation and gender identification in legislation ... You need to contact your Representative in the House where legislation passed by the Senate is waiting approval.

.

Wow you can't be that obtuse can you?

In case you are I'll spell it out for you.

I said IF I lived in a place where PA laws didn't include sexual orientation I would use the already existing sexual discrimination laws.

The only reason why some people want to deny that ceremony to homosexuals is because one of them isn't the opposite sex of the other. If they were a couple of the opposite sex, they would get that marriage ceremony.

Ok sparky pay attention, here's the hard part, That's sexual discrimination. They're discriminating against the person because they aren't of the opposite sex. In a male homosexual couple, one of them isn't a woman. In a female homosexual couple, one isn't a man. That is discrimination based on sex. Which is sexual discrimination. We have many very clear laws that prevent sexual discrimination.

I talked about it with a state supreme court judge recently. He agreed with me. He was one of the judges who ruled that banning gay marriage is constitutional in my state. That was during the bush boy years. He has changed his mind about the whole thing and agrees that it's sexual discrimination and if the case came before him today, he would rule that it's sexual discrimination. That's from a judge on the Washington state supreme court.

The people of Washington state overruled that ruling and voted in 2012 to make homosexual marriage legal. It's been legal here since 2012. Notice, no judge did that, in fact the judges on our supreme court ruled it was constitutional. So the lie that judges are biased or making legislation from the bench to get homosexual marriage legal is nothing but a lie.

I never argued that States could not approve same sex marriage ... The thread is not about whether or not same sex marriage is legal.

.

So then I finally got through to you. You do agree that it's sexual discrimination to deny homosexual people the marriage ceremony.

There may be some hope for you yet.

 

[martybegan]

Having to compare yourself to the elderly or the disabled justifies what?

Answer: your delusion

I'm not Gay. I am an American citizen who cannot fathom using hate, fear and suspicion as motivation for discrimination in business.

and yet you can fathom using government to punish people for their beliefs, even in something as inconsequential and non essential as where to hold a wedding, who to bake a cake for, or who to shoot photographs for.

Religious beliefs is a smokescreen. No legitimate religion calls for discrimination as part of their dogma or doctrine. Wrapping homophobia in ecclesiastical robes is a pitiful way to go.

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

 

[Dana7360]

Business isn't religion. No one is telling those business people they can't be religious. If they were a church they would be exempted but they're not a church and they can't expect to be special from everyone else and be allowed to violate the law.

What the business people are doing is a violation of the business license contract, violation of the 14th amendment and violation of our anti discrimination laws.

You can talk about religious freedom all you want. It won't make any difference. You're in the minority here and you're advocating violating laws and our constitution.

That business violated the law and they should expect to pay the consequences of their crime. It's a crime to violate the law.

The anti-discrimination laws you speak of do not include sexual orientation as an identified protected class. Legislation regarding the establishment of sexual orientation as a protected class is still pending in Congress.

.

Actually they do. I pointed it out to you earlier.

They're sexually discriminating against that couple. They're denying their services based on the customer's sex. Which is against the anti discrimination laws.

If the couple was of the opposite sex they would preform the ceremony. Since they're basing their discrimination on the basis of sex it's sexual discrimination.

You might want to take it up with one of the judges on the Washington state supreme court. He agrees with me and said if a case came before him today, he would rule in favor of the homosexual couple based on the fact that the business owner was sexually discriminating them.

That is in the context of same sex marriage and protects the couple from discrimination in regards to whether or not they can be married. It doesn't mean that the couple can violate the first amendment rights of the business owner.

Equal protection under the law would actually be equal ... I have no need to take it up with a judge in Washington attempting to legislate from the bench. I don't live in Washington, don't much care what they do there ... And support the ability of States to determine their own laws involving same sex marriage.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking a Washington State judge makes Federal policy.

.

No you're wrong.

It's sexual discrimination and that's very illegal in America.

I don't think that a judge in Washington state makes federal policy. His job is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Or if a person broke the law.

He clearly said, he agreed that it's sexual discrimination to deny someone a service or to get married on the basis of sex.

He was up for reelection and I called him. Again. I call everyone who is on the ballot each time they're on the ballot. I asked him about gay marriage and about the fact that some people are using religion as an excuse to deny performing the marriage ceremony. I stated my view on how it has not only to do with the equal protection laws but it also violates the sexual discrimination laws. He agreed. He said if a case came before him where a business owner denied a gay couple their services, he would rule on favor of the gay couple based on the 14th amendment , our civil rights laws and our anti sexual discrimination laws.

He said he had never heard anyone debate the subject from that point and that I was very smart for thinking about it that way. He also said he changed his mind a few years ago on the whole thing and if the case of denying a gay couple the marriage license came before him today, he would rule in favor of the gay couple.

 

[BlackSand]

We have laws against sexual discrimination. The civil rights act makes sexual discrimination illegal.

Homosexuals are being denied the marriage ceremony by some people because one person is of the wrong sex.

That's against our civil rights laws. It's also against the laws that makes sexual discrimination illegal.

I'm not homosexual but if I was and lived in an area that didn't include gays in the PA laws, I would still sue that business owner on the grounds of sexual discrimination and I would win. Since I'm a bitch and hate discrimination in any form, I would also have financially destroyed the business owner and the business. I would sue that business for as much money as I possibly could and made sure that the owner was so financially destroyed, they wouldn't be able to recover. I have no sympathy for people who believe they're special and laws don't apply to them.

Guess what? You have absolutely no legal leg to stand on.

None of the laws you stated identify sexual orientation as a protected class. If you would like proceed with measures to include sexual orientation and gender identification in legislation ... You need to contact your Representative in the House where legislation passed by the Senate is waiting approval.

.

Wow you can't be that obtuse can you?

In case you are I'll spell it out for you.

I said IF I lived in a place where PA laws didn't include sexual orientation I would use the already existing sexual discrimination laws.

The only reason why some people want to deny that ceremony to homosexuals is because one of them isn't the opposite sex of the other. If they were a couple of the opposite sex, they would get that marriage ceremony.

Ok sparky pay attention, here's the hard part, That's sexual discrimination. They're discriminating against the person because they aren't of the opposite sex. In a male homosexual couple, one of them isn't a woman. In a female homosexual couple, one isn't a man. That is discrimination based on sex. Which is sexual discrimination. We have many very clear laws that prevent sexual discrimination.

I talked about it with a state supreme court judge recently. He agreed with me. He was one of the judges who ruled that banning gay marriage is constitutional in my state. That was during the bush boy years. He has changed his mind about the whole thing and agrees that it's sexual discrimination and if the case came before him today, he would rule that it's sexual discrimination. That's from a judge on the Washington state supreme court.

The people of Washington state overruled that ruling and voted in 2012 to make homosexual marriage legal. It's been legal here since 2012. Notice, no judge did that, in fact the judges on our supreme court ruled it was constitutional. So the lie that judges are biased or making legislation from the bench to get homosexual marriage legal is nothing but a lie.

I never argued that States could not approve same sex marriage ... The thread is not about whether or not same sex marriage is legal.

.

So then I finally got through to you. You do agree that it's sexual discrimination to deny homosexual people the marriage ceremony.

There may be some hope for you yet.

Not at all ... I agreed that same sex couples have been given the privilege of marriage by the State. All the law does is make same sex marriage legal.

Protection status for sexual orientation and gender identification is in the Washington Non-Discrimination Law. It doesn't contain any language indicating sexual orientation is a matter concerning gender discrimination. You are making that leap to judgement in regards to what a judge referred to (not referenced or cited in existing law) on the bench.

Likewise ... The State has the right to pass the laws that govern their citizens without making excuses that aren't necessary to provide protections that already exist in the State's Non-Discrimination Law.

.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not Gay. I am an American citizen who cannot fathom using hate, fear and suspicion as motivation for discrimination in business.

and yet you can fathom using government to punish people for their beliefs, even in something as inconsequential and non essential as where to hold a wedding, who to bake a cake for, or who to shoot photographs for.

Religious beliefs is a smokescreen. No legitimate religion calls for discrimination as part of their dogma or doctrine. Wrapping homophobia in ecclesiastical robes is a pitiful way to go.

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

 

[JFK_USA]

The butthurt is strong in republicunts in this thread!

Te frothing foaming fairies aren't content to have "equal rights" but demand everyone approve their choices.

Hell hath no fury like a fairy scorned

Let them get married-just don't force others to approve of it or sponsor it

If you discriminate your services against a group of people simply because they are in a certain class, that's against the law and public policy.

50 years ago, people were using the same logic to deny black people services to the general public. If you offer services of any kind to the general public (wedding rental spaces) and you refuse to serve someone because they are apart of a certain class of people, then you violate anti-discrimination laws. Period. You have a right to your religion, you don't have a right to deny services to people based upon your religion.

 

[martybegan]

and yet you can fathom using government to punish people for their beliefs, even in something as inconsequential and non essential as where to hold a wedding, who to bake a cake for, or who to shoot photographs for.

Religious beliefs is a smokescreen. No legitimate religion calls for discrimination as part of their dogma or doctrine. Wrapping homophobia in ecclesiastical robes is a pitiful way to go.

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

 

[Nosmo King]

Religious beliefs is a smokescreen. No legitimate religion calls for discrimination as part of their dogma or doctrine. Wrapping homophobia in ecclesiastical robes is a pitiful way to go.

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

 

[bodecea]

Religious beliefs is a smokescreen. No legitimate religion calls for discrimination as part of their dogma or doctrine. Wrapping homophobia in ecclesiastical robes is a pitiful way to go.

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

So it would NOT be illegal for a christian business to deny services to a muslim or a jew or an atheist?

 

[Katzndogz]

The end result is that this couple will pay the fine and never host a same sex wedding. That's what happened.

 

[Nosmo King]

The end result is that this couple will pay the fine and never host a same sex wedding. That's what happened.

So they will lose $13,000 today and another $13,000 the next time the discriminate and consequently lose the profits from same sex weddings that do no harm to anyone? All while they wrap themselves in the deceptively illegal cloak of 'religious freedom'.

 

[Seawytch]

Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.

They would be wrong.

There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.

Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?

Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.

They would be wrong.

There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.

Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?

What it does is prevents you from bringing up the whole racism thing as a valid argument. Racism is not condoned in the bible. Homosexuality is condemned in plain text.

Your fetishes for forcing people to accept you need some other basis, you can't keep using the one you are using without looking stupid.

It's valid even though it makes you uncomfortable. They have just as much biblical justification as you do.

They have none, and have been repeatedly beaten down by decades of theological debate. They have as much of a right to say a blue book is orange as they do to say the bible condones racism, but it does not give them a valid argument.

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

 

[bodecea]

It would have been funnier to fine them $666.

 

[Seawytch]

Business isn't religion. No one is telling those business people they can't be religious. If they were a church they would be exempted but they're not a church and they can't expect to be special from everyone else and be allowed to violate the law.

What the business people are doing is a violation of the business license contract, violation of the 14th amendment and violation of our anti discrimination laws.

You can talk about religious freedom all you want. It won't make any difference. You're in the minority here and you're advocating violating laws and our constitution.

That business violated the law and they should expect to pay the consequences of their crime. It's a crime to violate the law.

The anti-discrimination laws you speak of do not include sexual orientation as an identified protected class. Legislation regarding the establishment of sexual orientation as a protected class is still pending in Congress.

.

The Supreme Court has already made the determination. (Romer)

SCOTUS - Romer v Evans is not legislation.

.

And? States and localities have passed legislation that protect gays on par with Christians and blacks.

 

[Katzndogz]

The end result is that this couple will pay the fine and never host a same sex wedding. That's what happened.

So they will lose $13,000 today and another $13,000 the next time the discriminate and consequently lose the profits from same sex weddings that do no harm to anyone? All while they wrap themselves in the deceptively illegal cloak of 'religious freedom'.

That is freedom. The very essence of freedom. They will not be fined again. Their answer is we will host the reception but no longer permit weddings in our home. Obviously they don't want profits from same sex weddings. They never did.

I refused to paint the portraits of a lesbian couple they lost. I was at the bakery last week when the baker turned down a wedding cake for a same sex couple who thought they could tantrum to get their way.

Business practices are changing. Gays better get used to hearing the word NO.

 

[Seawytch]

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

If you're not very religious then why did you use religion to excuse discriminating against homosexual people?

Please show me where in the bible that jesus said homosexuality is wrong.

I know I'll be waiting for a very long time.

I used to be a christian. I lived and breathed the bible and jesus christ. I know what's in the christian bible. Thus I know you're wrong.

Stop lying.

I used religion to show why they think they can. We are talking about homosexuality and religion, are we not? As for Jesus in the bible, I could care less. To say that homosexuality is not mentioned in the New Testament is being deceitful. We both know that it is.

BTW, Jesus said this about marriage:

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.

Funny, I don't see that he included gays in that statement. Could it be that it was on purpose?

Mark

Jesus was talking about divorce in that passage, which is a sin.

When I see these "religious liberty" folks denying divorced people services, I'd trust their "religiousosity" a bit more.

 

[Nosmo King]

The end result is that this couple will pay the fine and never host a same sex wedding. That's what happened.

So they will lose $13,000 today and another $13,000 the next time the discriminate and consequently lose the profits from same sex weddings that do no harm to anyone? All while they wrap themselves in the deceptively illegal cloak of 'religious freedom'.

That is freedom. The very essence of freedom. They will not be fined again. Their answer is we will host the reception but no longer permit weddings in our home. Obviously they don't want profits from same sex weddings. They never did.

I refused to paint the portraits of a lesbian couple they lost. I was at the bakery last week when the baker turned down a wedding cake for a same sex couple who thought they could tantrum to get their way.

Business practices are changing. Gays better get used to hearing the word NO.

Spoken like the manager of a Woolworth's lunch counter circa 1956.

 

[BlackSand]

And? States and localities have passed legislation that protect gays on par with Christians and blacks.

I simply stated that Romer v Evans does not provide legislative protection in cases that do not apply to the conditions involved.

Romer v Evans was used as precedence in following cases such as Lawrence v The State of Texas and United States v Windsor. None of those cases involved the ability of same sex couples to request services from business owners who held religious beliefs contradictory to the request.

Until that aspect of the condition is addressed in legislation ... It shouldn't be assumed to exist where it doesn't. Some states have gone as far to include sexual orientation and gender identification in their own laws ... But then again those protections are not based in Federal legislation ... Which in turn does not identify sexual orientation or gender identification as a protected class.

The only part of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down by SCOTUS was Section 3 ...

Section 3. Definition of marriage (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Again ... It refers to the definition if marriage ... Not who is required to provide services to same sex couples.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

Being gay is not the same as being black. Gays just better get used to hearing the word no. Business is changing to avoid them.

 

[bodecea]

Being gay is not the same as being black. Gays just better get used to hearing the word no. Business is changing to avoid them.

And being female is not the same as being black....but try discriminating against women and see what happens.