Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[Syriusly]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

I love how so-called Christians think themselves as victims because they are being told to follow the same law which tells Americans that they cannot discriminate against a couple because they are Christian.

Either be willing to follow the law- or run a business that doesn't potentially require you to violate your religious beliefs by having to serve homosexuals, or Jews, or blacks, or Veterans or the handicapped.

 

[Syriusly]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

The world indeed would be a better place without you democrats.....

That is what the right wing nut jobs always say.

 

[Syriusly]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

The victim is the same sex couple. There is no religious "right" to discriminate. Do you have a religious "right" to refuse service to African Americans? To Jewish Americans? To Islamic Americans?

Please cite for us all where Jesus Christ admonished His followers to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this ugly, anti-Christian dogma come from? How does it square with true Christian teaching, I.e. Love your neighbor and you would be loved? Or cast not the first stone for you too are a sinner?

Nowhere! It's simply using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if signage is needed to protect the bigots, I suggest they post a large sign in their window stating: Due to our abiding faith in Jesus Christ, we refuse to serve SKEEVY, maggot-infested queers.

If you're a bigot, own your bigotry.

Exactly.

One cannot use religion as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to violate just and proper laws:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Public accommodations laws are in fact valid laws, and clearly prohibit conduct – businesses discriminating against patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation – the states and local jurisdictions are free to regulate.

What if we had a law that forced you to do something that prohibited your from practicing your faith as you want. Your faith tells you that you can do this and doing that is strictly prohibited. The law then tells you that you must do what is strictly prohibited. Could you say that you were free to practice your own faith as you wanted in that situation?

Like laws against smoking pot? Taking psychedelic drugs? - both of which have been used by religions.
What about allowing your children to die because your religion doesn't believe in medical care?
What about if your religion tells you that you should stone adulterer's to death- but civil law prohibits you from stoning people?

 

[Syriusly]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

You know, I'm going to approve of that message, so long as the same stipulation is applied. You want to discriminate against interracial marriage? Go ahead! So long as you have conspicuous signage on your storefronts.

What you're not getting is that the market does not like those kinds of things. We're letting bigots stay in business because nobody knows they're bigots. Discrimination is happening all the time in today's world, because discriminatory bigots are hiding in plain sight, continuing to get their fill of business, and simply masking their discrimination in other terms. I happen to know of one particular wedding planner who is well known within the local industry for being rabidly opposed to same sex marriage and flatly refuses to serve gay couples. It's pretty easy to do. All she has to do is say she's not available. She's actually so damn vile about it that she's alienated most people. But she gets plenty of clients who never know how much of a monster that bitch is.

But you stupid liberals don't actually care about any of that. You don't actually care about encouraging an inclusive society, you just care about government control.

However, you stupid conservatives don't actually care about people getting served. You stupid conservatives want to gloss over that there are reasons why these laws passed- that in some places there is such a majority of small minded bigots that there might not be anyone within that community willing to let blacks sit in their restaurant, or bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah.

In such a community- a sign saying you don't serve Gays or Blacks might actually be a commercial draw

 

[Syriusly]

r to drum up sympathy for the Church of LGBT. ?

LOL- 'the Church of LGBT'

Another thing that exist entirely inside Silhouette's delusional mind.

 

[bodecea]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

The world indeed would be a better place without you democrats.....

^ As we can see...another RW Drumpf supporter who hates our Constitutional rights and is more in line with Hitler's "Final Solution".

 

[SwimExpert]

For those who include discrimination based upon sexual orientation with other prohibitions- such as prohibition against discriminating against veterans or the handicapped or based upon race or religion- do you want to repeal those laws also?

Yes. Repeal them, and replace them with the stipulations I've mentioned.

 

[Syriusly]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

ANY business should be able to refuse service for ANY reason. Forcing businesses to do business with someone they chose not to should be illegal.

Well you folks best get busy abolishing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Syriusly]

For those who include discrimination based upon sexual orientation with other prohibitions- such as prohibition against discriminating against veterans or the handicapped or based upon race or religion- do you want to repeal those laws also?

Yes. Repeal them, and replace them with the stipulations I've mentioned.

Well the granddaddy of them all is the 1964 Civil Rights Act- you best get busy repealing the law which tells business's that they cannot discriminate against customers based upon race or religion.

 

[SwimExpert]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

A conspicuous notice?

Like this, I assume...

Yes.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well the granddaddy of them all is the 1964 Civil Rights Act- you best get busy repealing the law which tells business's that they cannot discriminate against customers based upon race or religion.

No, it's not. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with providing services to same sex weddings.

 

[SwimExpert]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

The world indeed would be a better place without you democrats.....

^ As we can see...another RW Drumpf supporter who hates our Constitutional rights and is more in line with Hitler's "Final Solution".

Who are you calling a Drumpf supporter? Owebo is Donald Trump.

 

[Pop23]

What does the color of one's skin have to do with homosexual behaviors?

What does sexual orientation have to do with the race a person is sexually attracted to?

CivilMarriage has nothing to do with sexual attraction however.

Or are you attempting to relate tradition to it?

Perplexing

 

[bodecea]

Lol.

I motion that you just stop prying into the personal lives of others.

Then you motion that the personal lives of the majority set the rule in each state. Majority says "no father or mother? No marriage".

Sure....go with that. You'll never get the majority to agree with you, however....and that's how things work in this country.

 

[Syriusly]

Well the granddaddy of them all is the 1964 Civil Rights Act- you best get busy repealing the law which tells business's that they cannot discriminate against customers based upon race or religion.

No, it's not. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with providing services to same sex weddings.

Me:
For those who include discrimination based upon sexual orientation with other prohibitions- such as prohibition against discriminating against veterans or the handicapped or based upon race or religion- do you want to repeal those laws also?

You Yes. Repeal them, and replace them with the stipulations I've mentioned.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is the granddaddy of all public accommodations laws. If you want to get rid of all public accommodation laws that is where you start.

If you just want business's to be able to discriminate against gays- then you look to your local community or State laws.

 

[Syriusly]

What does the color of one's skin have to do with homosexual behaviors?

What does sexual orientation have to do with the race a person is sexually attracted to?

CivilMarriage has nothing to do with sexual attraction however.

I didn't say it did.

 

[bodecea]

Unconstitutional things cannot be made legal once the supreme court says something is unconstitutional.

If you amend the constitution it can be, and of course decisions can be overturned.

If you amend the Constitution. Absolutely. Go right ahead and do so. However this requires enough like-minded Americans....think you can pull that off?

 

[martybegan]

Unconstitutional things cannot be made legal once the supreme court says something is unconstitutional.

If you amend the constitution it can be, and of course decisions can be overturned.

If you amend the Constitution. Absolutely. Go right ahead and do so. However this requires enough like-minded Americans....think you can pull that off?

Where in the constitution does it say a baker has to bake a cake?

 

[SwimExpert]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

You know, I'm going to approve of that message, so long as the same stipulation is applied. You want to discriminate against interracial marriage? Go ahead! So long as you have conspicuous signage on your storefronts.

What you're not getting is that the market does not like those kinds of things. We're letting bigots stay in business because nobody knows they're bigots. Discrimination is happening all the time in today's world, because discriminatory bigots are hiding in plain sight, continuing to get their fill of business, and simply masking their discrimination in other terms. I happen to know of one particular wedding planner who is well known within the local industry for being rabidly opposed to same sex marriage and flatly refuses to serve gay couples. It's pretty easy to do. All she has to do is say she's not available. She's actually so damn vile about it that she's alienated most people. But she gets plenty of clients who never know how much of a monster that bitch is.

But you stupid liberals don't actually care about any of that. You don't actually care about encouraging an inclusive society, you just care about government control.

However, you stupid conservatives don't actually care about people getting served. You stupid conservatives want to gloss over that there are reasons why these laws passed- that in some places there is such a majority of small minded bigots that there might not be anyone within that community willing to let blacks sit in their restaurant, or bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah.

In such a community- a sign saying you don't serve Gays or Blacks might actually be a commercial draw

You really have no idea what you're talking about. The wedding industry is not a laundromat. Everyone needs laundry on at least a weekly basis. People need wedding services maybe once or twice in a lifetime, and overwhelmingly at certain ages. The people who are doing the spending on weddings are almost entirely Millenials. It's the younger generation who finds all the homophobia to be batshit crazy.

Oh, and another thing. In your desperation to paint a picture of dusty small town hickville communities where population 300 might make it impossible for a gay couple to find another service provider, you demonstrate your ignorance of the entire matter in the first place. The wedding industry is one of mobile services in population centers. The wedding industry does not exist in the types of backwood, middle of nowhere Mayberry you are inventing in your imagination. You really think there are alot of weddings going on in Hickville USA population 300?

 

[SwimExpert]

If you just want business's to be able to discriminate against gays- then you look to your local community or State laws.

Pay attention. This is a thread about discrimination for same sex weddings.