Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[SwimExpert]

If there is anything this thread has taught us, it's that liberals are irrational children who can't even be satisfied when they get their way.

 

[hazlnut]

How about we ban homophobes and haters from having kids and raising children.

Break the circle of stupid.

 

[hazlnut]

If there is anything this thread has taught us, it's that liberals are irrational children who can't even be satisfied when they get their way.

....Says the dope who advocated making discrimination legal.

 

[Silhouette]

How about we ban homophobes and haters from having kids and raising children.

Break the circle of stupid.

How about we ban people keen on disenfranchising children from either a mother or father for life as a matter of a legal contract from having kids and raising children?

 

[Syriusly]

If there is anything this thread has taught us, it's that liberals are irrational children who can't even be satisfied when they get their way.

If there is anything this thread has taught us is that SwimExpert thinks that a business- if it is a wedding business- should be allowed to discriminate against gays- but not allowed to discriminate against blacks, jews, Christians.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow, seems that people telling me what I want is all the rage all of a sudden. Again, you don't know me.

Someone's suddenly defensive because their hidden agenda has been laid bare. Your the one who makes your statements. Don't blame me because of your own stupidity.

Defensive because you're attacking with made up stuff. No you're on to insults.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

See, I don't want to live in a society where bigotry and stupidity is encouraged.

No, you would rather live in a society where government punishes you for Thought Crime then.

You're telling me what I think.... you don't know me.

I know what you are typing, and it reeks of Though Police.

Well you tell me what "Though Police" is..... then explain what you're saying.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How do you know they refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples if they don't ask? Your claims are totally unsubstantiated. Most people don't care if their vendor serves queers. They just want their wedding to go off without a hitch.

 

[bripat9643]

I do not like your stipulation.

Government should of stayed out of the marriage scheme to begin with.

Is it really such an infringement? If really have a sincere belief in opposition to same sex marriage, why would they not want everyone to know?

Don't be such a dumbass. We all know the GAYstapo will do everything it can to make your life a living hell if they find out you oppose legalizing their queer unions.

 

[bripat9643]

Is it really such an infringement? If really have a sincere belief in opposition to same sex marriage, why would they not want everyone to know?

This nation is being choked on infringements. While this may be one minor infringement, it is feeding a larger problem.

It is lawyer bait. Evidence of a state that is beginning to regulate every little detail of our personal and professional lives.

So, a solution with less government involvement is sending us down a path for total government control? That's just obtuse.

How is forcing states to legalize queer marriage "less government?"

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You have a right to discriminate against any person for any reason. The Constitution only prevents government from discriminating, not private citizens.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

Public accommodations laws with provisions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation exist on a state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.

For example, Michigan’s public accommodations laws have no provision for sexual orientation, businesses in that state are at liberty to refuse to accommodate LGBT patrons.

For those who live in states or jurisdictions whose public accommodations laws have provisions for sexual orientation, those hostile to gay Americans may through the political process seek to have those laws repealed, or their sexual orientation provisions removed, rendering your inane ‘proposal’ completely devoid of merit and worth.

Otherwise, public accommodations laws with provisions prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and perfectly Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause does not authorize any such thing.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

A religious organization does not have to marry LGBTQ.

See. No problem.

Someone holding a product out to the public is subject to PA laws. Get over it.

They are strictly unconstitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's not a new idea. All kinds of businesses used to put up "No Colored Allowed " signs to keep out black people too, and wanted to let the money do the speaking. It was just as disgusting and wrong for them as it would be for you

Actually, no they didn't, unless forced to by law. What the mostly did is have separate accommodations for whites and colored. These practices were enforced by state law. When money does the speaking, business will serve whoever has it.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You mean like laws that force bakers to serve two queers getting married?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Santaria. Voodoo. In that faith, live animal sacrifice is part of the ritual. Yet live animal sacrifice is prohibited in the United States.

That doesn't make any sense. We can kill them to eat them, but not for religious reasons?

 

[bripat9643]

Public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation exist as commercial regulatory policy, ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Government does not create integrity. It only enforces its own distorted version of honesty, and that is pretty funny considering the state is the most dishonest institution in existence.

Even if they do ensure integrity, they still lead to racism and bigotry through the politicization of social conflict.

What do you have besides conjecture?

-Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes state and local governments to safeguard the markets and protect against their disruption, where allowing businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to the markets:

In doing so, it forces more market disruption and conditions greater discrimination.

The government is elected by the people. They aren't an independent group with their own goals. If you don't like what they do, then vote them out. That is how our system works. Didn't you pay any attention when that was taught in Jr. High?

An independent group with their own goals is exactly what they are.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

That's not a new idea. All kinds of businesses used to put up "No Colored Allowed " signs to keep out black people too, and wanted to let the money do the speaking. It was just as disgusting and wrong for them as it would be for you

Actually, no they didn't, unless forced to by law. What the mostly did is have separate accommodations for whites and colored. These practices were enforced by state law. When money does the speaking, business will serve whoever has it.

You got one law that required restaurants to deny service to anybody? The laws allowed it, but nothing in the law required it. I'll wait for your proof, fingerboy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's not a new idea. All kinds of businesses used to put up "No Colored Allowed " signs to keep out black people too, and wanted to let the money do the speaking. It was just as disgusting and wrong for them as it would be for you

Actually, no they didn't, unless forced to by law. What the mostly did is have separate accommodations for whites and colored. These practices were enforced by state law. When money does the speaking, business will serve whoever has it.

You got one law that required restaurants to deny service to anybody? The laws allowed it, but nothing in the law required it. I'll wait for your proof, fingerboy.

Nope. The law mandated separate areas for blacks and white. Read "The Strange Career of Him Crow."

http://www.shmoop.com/jim-crow/summary.html

Taking cues from northern segregation policies enacted prior to the Civil War, southern legislators dictated where black citizens would eat, drink, sit, swim, walk, work, play, learn, live, be hospitalized, and be buried. Laws mandated separate seating areas for blacks on public transport, in sports stadiums, in restaurants, and in playhouses and movie theaters. City and state officials established whites-only lavatories, drinking fountains, waiting rooms, prison cells, ticket counters, and telephone booths. Furthermore, some laws did more than simply separate the races; black southerners were prohibited from accessing certain facilities altogether, such as public swimming pools, tennis courts, and roller skating rinks. And housing codes forbade black families from renting, purchasing, or building homes except in neighborhoods designated for them.​

 

[BULLDOG]

Public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation exist as commercial regulatory policy, ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Government does not create integrity. It only enforces its own distorted version of honesty, and that is pretty funny considering the state is the most dishonest institution in existence.

Even if they do ensure integrity, they still lead to racism and bigotry through the politicization of social conflict.

What do you have besides conjecture?

-Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes state and local governments to safeguard the markets and protect against their disruption, where allowing businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to the markets:

In doing so, it forces more market disruption and conditions greater discrimination.

The government is elected by the people. They aren't an independent group with their own goals. If you don't like what they do, then vote them out. That is how our system works. Didn't you pay any attention when that was taught in Jr. High?

An independent group with their own goals is exactly what they are.

Do you also believe they are green shape shifting lizard people like Alex Jones has been warning us about?