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

[turtledude]

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.

of course it is against the law. It should not be.

 

[JoeB131]

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

No, Marky, the problem is that they are using "religion" as an excuse for their homophobia. You can't say, "Well, this law is iron-clad!" but then say, "This one is open to interpretation!"

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

 

[JoeB131]

what is simple is that the federal government was never given any proper power in this area.

That happens to be your opinion. mine is that the states can't be trusted with this sort of thing. We have 200 years of history of racism to kind of back that up.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

of course it is against the law. It should not be.

Yeah? How many times have you called your congresscritter?

 

[BlackSand]

what is simple is that the federal government was never given any proper power in this area.

That happens to be your opinion. mine is that the states can't be trusted with this sort of thing. We have 200 years of history of racism to kind of back that up.

We would have a racism history more in line with the rest of the world if we weren't so young as a country.

.

 

[Antares]

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.

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

.

State and county legislation has added gays to their PA laws. It IS the law in those places.

The SCOTUS had the opportunity to take up one of these baker/florist/photographer cases...they chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled against the bigots.

 

[BlackSand]

State and county legislation has added gays to their PA laws. It IS the law in those places.

The SCOTUS had the opportunity to take up one of these baker/florist/photographer cases...they chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled against the bigots.

Provide a link to where the language has been added to the law ... Which ruled against bigots in favor of other bigots.

.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm still trying to figure out what the fine is for. Where was there any harm done? Crazy.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

I support the law because it is the right thing to do.

Now, go ahead and call names again.

 

[Antares]

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.

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

I support the law because it is the right thing to do.

Now, go ahead and call names again.

LOL, ego much?

I'll let you know when I am talking to you.

 

[bodecea]

I'm still trying to figure out what the fine is for. Where was there any harm done? Crazy.

Why do speeders get fined? No harm done, right?

 

[bodecea]

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.

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

I support the law because it is the right thing to do.

Now, go ahead and call names again.

LOL, ego much?

I'll let you know when I am talking to you.

Ah, but I'm talking to you, my wee laddie.

 

[Antares]

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.

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

I support the law because it is the right thing to do.

Now, go ahead and call names again.

LOL, ego much?

I'll let you know when I am talking to you.

Ah, but I'm talking to you, my wee laddie.

So you are.

You should know that you don't matter....have fun.

 

[bodecea]

I support the law because it's the right thing to do.

Of course you do, you see YOU are a liar with no integrity and that's why none of this bothers you.

I support the law because it is the right thing to do.

Now, go ahead and call names again.

LOL, ego much?

I'll let you know when I am talking to you.

Ah, but I'm talking to you, my wee laddie.

So you are.

You should know that you don't matter....have fun.

Oh I matter.

 

[MaryL]

Actually, business owners should be able to discriminate against sexual perverts. Being that homosexuality is just a form of sexual dysfunction / perversion and isn't mentioned in the American Constitution. Can anyone logically argue against THAT?

You're a fucking idiot. I'd say that argument suffices. Now shut up before someone starts to think that all conservatives are a stupid as you.

Really? Vulgar hateful people that jump to conclusions like you accept sexual dysfunction as normal. You aren't really in a moral position to pass judgment or attempt to censure other people's opinions. Would you like to apologize?

 

[bodecea]

Actually, business owners should be able to discriminate against sexual perverts. Being that homosexuality is just a form of sexual dysfunction / perversion and isn't mentioned in the American Constitution. Can anyone logically argue against THAT?

You're a fucking idiot. I'd say that argument suffices. Now shut up before someone starts to think that all conservatives are a stupid as you.

Really? Vulgar hateful people that jump to conclusions like you accept sexual dysfunction as normal. You aren't really in a moral position to pass judgment or attempt to censure other people's opinions. Would you like to apologize?

I am curious....are you arguing that homosexuals are not full-fledged tax-paying, law-abiding citizens?

 

[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.

of course it is against the law. It should not be.

So in a country that proclaims "All men are created equal" and with the history of discrimination that is has shown for at least 80% of it's history, we should not have laws protecting that ideal and instead should reward people for their intolerant and hateful actions?

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

.

State and county legislation has added gays to their PA laws. It IS the law in those places.

The SCOTUS had the opportunity to take up one of these baker/florist/photographer cases...they chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled against the bigots.

You know, you're not that bad for a conservative