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

[80zephyr]

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

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

Nope. Not even close to what I said.

Mark

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

No. The only way it could would be if a right of Woolworths was being violated. Which right would that be?

Mark

 

[Redfish]

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

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

So a business no longer has the freedom to offer its services to who it chooses? Would the state sue a gay or black business for refusing to cater to a KKK rally?

 

[mudwhistle]

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

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

No shit Sherlock.

Who's agenda rules that state?

 

[martybegan]

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

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

You don't blame the gun for the crime, you blame the shooter. When a couple complains to the government, and the government is the one that goes after the people, its the initiator that is the responsible party.

If you are going to go after a person's livelihood at least have the balls (or the flaps) to own up to it.

 

[Unkotare]

That's what a ni99er hating ...

You sure seem to enjoy posting that word over and over again. Think you're still fooling anyone?

Oh 2 times is over and over? ?

Many times in many threads. You are exposed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That's what a ni99er hating ...

You sure seem to enjoy posting that word over and over again. Think you're still fooling anyone?

Oh 2 times is over and over? ?

Many times in many threads. You are exposed.

 

[80zephyr]

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

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

And the gay couple can then sue.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

So a business no longer has the freedom to offer its services to who it chooses? Would the state sue a gay or black business for refusing to cater to a KKK rally?

Excellent point.

Mark

 

[BlackSand]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

 

[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

Like a ni99er and a white girl right? May they be SCORNED TO THE FIRES OF HEEEELLL!

so you are a racist and hate the constitution?

Nice I'm glad you can identify racism and hatred of the constitution

My post was satire but good for you. Next time you'll be able to recognize it in real life

I love low grade morons who want to play such silly games with me. they are generally arrogant turds who don't like being told by men dead for 200 years what the rules are.

 

[bodecea]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

 

[bodecea]

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

So a business no longer has the freedom to offer its services to who it chooses? Would the state sue a gay or black business for refusing to cater to a KKK rally?

Why not?

 

[Katzndogz]

The farm will no longer host weddings. NO same sex couple can get married there. For friends and those known personally, the farm will still host weddings.

 

[martybegan]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

 

[BlackSand]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

So your previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts has no bearing on the discussion ... Much like most of your arguments?

.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a fucking cowardly twat.

 

[bodecea]

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

No shit Sherlock.

Who's agenda rules that state?

Well, if you are asking me "Whose agenda rules that state?"....I would have to say the agenda of We the People.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good!
We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.
There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

You're happy they were fined for something they refused to to in their residence?
What a whacknut.

 

[hazlnut]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

why does the flaming fairy left hate the right of association (or non-association)

if they don't want to host two lesbians getting married so be it

They run a business that caters to the public. (well, not any more)



Learn the law, ignorant homophobe.



They can associate with whomever they want.

But when hang up a sign saying open for business, they need to follow the LAW.