Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[Onyx]

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

The law also mandated that Africans were treated as property.

Slaves were more scared of the army and police than they were plantation guards and bounty hunters.

 

[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.

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

I believe what I can see with my own two eyes. Why do you imagine people who work for the government have the same interests as me? One trip to the DMV is enough to disabuse any intelligent person of that notion.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Ever heard the phrase "Public Accomodation Laws"?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

That's the law.

 

[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.

Ever heard the phrase "Public Accomodation Laws"?

Ever heard the phrase "unconstitutional?"

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That's the law.

That must be your way of saying you don't care whether the law is just.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Ever heard the phrase "Public Accomodation Laws"?

Ever heard the phrase "unconstitutional?"

That's for the courts to decide, not closed minded bigots like you.

 

[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.

Ever heard the phrase "Public Accomodation Laws"?

Ever heard the phrase "unconstitutional?"

That's for the courts to decide, not closed minded bigots like you.

That's for every American to decide, douche bag.

 

[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.

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.​

So all those businesses were forced against their will to exclude black people? Tell me another one.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Feel free to get married in a church of your choosing and just don't bother with the license. Problem solved.

 

[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?

I believe what I can see with my own two eyes. Why do you imagine people who work for the government have the same interests as me? One trip to the DMV is enough to disabuse any intelligent person of that notion.

Are the people working at the DMV elected?

 

[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.​

So all those businesses were forced against their will to exclude black people? Tell me another one.

Yes, that's exactly correct. It's recorded history. Rosa Parks had to ride in the back of the bus because state law said so.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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?

I believe what I can see with my own two eyes. Why do you imagine people who work for the government have the same interests as me? One trip to the DMV is enough to disabuse any intelligent person of that notion.

Are the people working at the DMV elected?

They're part of the government, moron. Are IRS agents elected?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Ever heard the phrase "Public Accomodation Laws"?

Ever heard the phrase "unconstitutional?"

That's for the courts to decide, not closed minded bigots like you.

That's for every American to decide, douche bag.

Are you suggesting that taking the law into your own hands is a good idea?

 

[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.

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

Discrimination is already legal. If I want, I can discriminate against people with red hair. Or people who drive foreign cars. Or people who are stupid (like yourself). Only a few special categories are protected for discriminatory use.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

It's called market research, derp. I pay good money for the stuff. You clearly didn't even read the post. Actually, I can't say "clearly." Knowing you, you might have read the post but have been too stupid to grasp what was said.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well if you don't want to live in a society where bigotry or stupidity is encouraged, you want to,live in one where it is discouraged. Currently people and government just can't seem to let people live their lives, so you have to choose one.

and when you actively discourage bigotry and "stupidity" (which can be defined as anything) you are trying to impact how people think, and thus the Thought Police line.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well if you don't want to live in a society where bigotry or stupidity is encouraged, you want to,live in one where it is discouraged. Currently people and government just can't seem to let people live their lives, so you have to choose one.

and when you actively discourage bigotry and "stupidity" (which can be defined as anything) you are trying to impact how people think, and thus the Thought Police line.

Thought police? It's a strange thing you're suggesting.

A baby is born without opinions on things. Opinions are developed and they're developed through education, through interaction with others. Their thoughts are never going to be their own, they're a product of their society.
If you actually just let kids do what they want, then boys would turn into aggressive violent beings. We don't want that and we don't accept that. We have laws against that. So you're talking about this so called "thought police" and yet the US already has it in place with laws, like against murder, against beating people up etc.

To give an example of what you call "thought police" and I call sensible teaching of kids how to think in a manner which is beneficial for society I'm going to point to Germany. Germany is a very special case unlike many others (Korea being an example that's kind of different and hasn't reached the point where Germany's at).

At the end of WW2 Germany was split into 4 parts, French, British, American and Soviet zones. Then Germany being one nation was out of the question and the wall was built.
The US was big behind a de-nazification program, well, up until they realized that Nazis made good anti-Communists. West Germany was also made massively aware of what it had done in the war. East Germany didn't hve such a de-nazification process, the Soviets didn't care as long as you were a good Soviet or pawn, and they didn't make anyone consider their Nazi past.

So, in the modern era we see the NPD, basically Neo-Nazis trying to get around laws that ban Nazi stuff.

This is a map of their membership. In case you forgot the Cold War, here's a map of East and West Germany.

Yep, the NPD's top 5 regions are all in the former East Germany. Why? Because social conditioning happened in the West and not in the East. People in the West were able to think more freely, yet they also rejected Nazism more than in the East where they were less likely to think freely.

Free thinking requires tools, like being able to make logical arguments and the like. These tools need to be learned in school. Kids need to consider things, they need to ask questions about their past, about their future, about their present. Without this they end up like many on this forum who, when asked something difficult, merely resort to attacks and insults. That's hardly free thinking.

So, you say making kids think is "thought police", perhaps when you say "thought police" you mean that you're policing them to think, and you don't like that, I don't know.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well if you don't want to live in a society where bigotry or stupidity is encouraged, you want to,live in one where it is discouraged. Currently people and government just can't seem to let people live their lives, so you have to choose one.

and when you actively discourage bigotry and "stupidity" (which can be defined as anything) you are trying to impact how people think, and thus the Thought Police line.

Thought police? It's a strange thing you're suggesting.

A baby is born without opinions on things. Opinions are developed and they're developed through education, through interaction with others. Their thoughts are never going to be their own, they're a product of their society.
If you actually just let kids do what they want, then boys would turn into aggressive violent beings. We don't want that and we don't accept that. We have laws against that. So you're talking about this so called "thought police" and yet the US already has it in place with laws, like against murder, against beating people up etc.

To give an example of what you call "thought police" and I call sensible teaching of kids how to think in a manner which is beneficial for society I'm going to point to Germany. Germany is a very special case unlike many others (Korea being an example that's kind of different and hasn't reached the point where Germany's at).

At the end of WW2 Germany was split into 4 parts, French, British, American and Soviet zones. Then Germany being one nation was out of the question and the wall was built.
The US was big behind a de-nazification program, well, up until they realized that Nazis made good anti-Communists. West Germany was also made massively aware of what it had done in the war. East Germany didn't hve such a de-nazification process, the Soviets didn't care as long as you were a good Soviet or pawn, and they didn't make anyone consider their Nazi past.

So, in the modern era we see the NPD, basically Neo-Nazis trying to get around laws that ban Nazi stuff.

This is a map of their membership. In case you forgot the Cold War, here's a map of East and West Germany.

Yep, the NPD's top 5 regions are all in the former East Germany. Why? Because social conditioning happened in the West and not in the East. People in the West were able to think more freely, yet they also rejected Nazism more than in the East where they were less likely to think freely.

Free thinking requires tools, like being able to make logical arguments and the like. These tools need to be learned in school. Kids need to consider things, they need to ask questions about their past, about their future, about their present. Without this they end up like many on this forum who, when asked something difficult, merely resort to attacks and insults. That's hardly free thinking.

So, you say making kids think is "thought police", perhaps when you say "thought police" you mean that you're policing them to think, and you don't like that, I don't know.

Why didn't you use the Hitler Youth as an example of how government "education" benefits society?

Government schools will always teach what is in the interest of government, not what is in the interest of the child or of society.

 

[Silhouette]

The nazis, like the satanists in WA state, taught children to hate and disdain members of religious groups.