Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Wrong" is subjective and therefore a personal opinion. :SHRUG: Some think it is "wrong" for the government to have Public Accommodation laws, and some think that it is "Good" for the government to protect citizens from discrimination.
In my opinion it is "wrong", but that has nothing to do with the functioning of the law. Federal Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the SCOTUS and under the 10th States have the power to create their own.
>>>>
There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.
There is no law that requires anyone to attend a wedding he objects to.
Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.
You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.
Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review
That a religious organization might be sued in its capacity as a property owner only has nothing to do whatsoever with that religions doctrine and dogma concerning same-sex couples. The same-sex couple is merely using the venue for a wedding ceremony, invoking the rites of a completely different faith, or a civil ceremony absent religious rites.
Such a suit would in no way compel the religious organization to recognize same-sex couples, or compel the religious organization to perform same-sex marriage, or alter its doctrine or dogma in any manner concerning marriage and same-sex couples.
You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.
Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review
That a religious organization might be sued in its capacity as a property owner only has nothing to do whatsoever with that religions doctrine and dogma concerning same-sex couples. The same-sex couple is merely using the venue for a wedding ceremony, invoking the rites of a completely different faith, or a civil ceremony absent religious rites.
Such a suit would in no way compel the religious organization to recognize same-sex couples, or compel the religious organization to perform same-sex marriage, or alter its doctrine or dogma in any manner concerning marriage and same-sex couples.
By this line of reasoning, your local public school gym must be made available to a neo-Nazi or KKK meeting. Your local private grade school must accommodate a NAMBLA gathering. Any private property owned by the DNC must allow a meeting of the RNC.
You cool with that too?
That a religious organization might be sued in its capacity as a property owner only has nothing to do whatsoever with that religions doctrine and dogma concerning same-sex couples. The same-sex couple is merely using the venue for a wedding ceremony, invoking the rites of a completely different faith, or a civil ceremony absent religious rites.
Such a suit would in no way compel the religious organization to recognize same-sex couples, or compel the religious organization to perform same-sex marriage, or alter its doctrine or dogma in any manner concerning marriage and same-sex couples.
By this line of reasoning, your local public school gym must be made available to a neo-Nazi or KKK meeting. Your local private grade school must accommodate a NAMBLA gathering. Any private property owned by the DNC must allow a meeting of the RNC.
You cool with that too?
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom
"Wrong" is subjective and therefore a personal opinion. :SHRUG: Some think it is "wrong" for the government to have Public Accommodation laws, and some think that it is "Good" for the government to protect citizens from discrimination.
In my opinion it is "wrong", but that has nothing to do with the functioning of the law. Federal Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the SCOTUS and under the 10th States have the power to create their own.
>>>>
There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.
There is no law that requires anyone to attend a wedding he objects to.
Exactly FA and Katz. The issue is an application of the law that is coercive and unreasonable if we believe in unalienable rights. A law is reasonable that requires accommodation of customers who walk through the doors of your place of business--so long as they exhibit reasonable personal deceny and conduct. Everybody should be served regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
A law that requires any person to accommodate a customer at the customer's location, however, is not reasonable.
Exactly FA and Katz. The issue is an application of the law that is coercive and unreasonable if we believe in unalienable rights. A law is reasonable that requires accommodation of customers who walk through the doors of your place of business--so long as they exhibit reasonable personal deceny and conduct. Everybody should be served regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
A law that requires any person to accommodate a customer at the customer's location, however, is not reasonable.
There are some jobs that must, by their very nature be done at the customer's location. Event photography being one of them. As the court found, this can be avoided through advertising. Just don't mention weddings. Have a disclaimer in the advertising that they are allowed to have. Bakeries can do the same thing, so can florists. A baker can bake the cake, but tell the wedding couple that they are responsible for transport and assembly at their location. A florist can sell flowers, but do not do wedding arrangements. Those have to be negotiated through a third party. This is going to change the way people do business, and not in the way gay advocates want. Of course they can still patronize those businesses who advertise they will accommodate same sex weddings, and that is exactly as it should be.
I know of several businesses that have been doing that for years. My mechanic refuses to repair cars owned by black people. He's had too much trouble in the past so he made a decision that it wasn't worth his trouble any more. There is no loss of business for providers who use limitations.
Exactly FA and Katz. The issue is an application of the law that is coercive and unreasonable if we believe in unalienable rights. A law is reasonable that requires accommodation of customers who walk through the doors of your place of business--so long as they exhibit reasonable personal deceny and conduct. Everybody should be served regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
A law that requires any person to accommodate a customer at the customer's location, however, is not reasonable.
There are some jobs that must, by their very nature be done at the customer's location. Event photography being one of them. As the court found, this can be avoided through advertising. Just don't mention weddings. Have a disclaimer in the advertising that they are allowed to have. Bakeries can do the same thing, so can florists. A baker can bake the cake, but tell the wedding couple that they are responsible for transport and assembly at their location. A florist can sell flowers, but do not do wedding arrangements. Those have to be negotiated through a third party. This is going to change the way people do business, and not in the way gay advocates want. Of course they can still patronize those businesses who advertise they will accommodate same sex weddings, and that is exactly as it should be.
I know of several businesses that have been doing that for years. My mechanic refuses to repair cars owned by black people. He's had too much trouble in the past so he made a decision that it wasn't worth his trouble any more. There is no loss of business for providers who use limitations.
Again our fascist courts show why we need more check on them. We should not allow a bunch of people in robes take our liberties.
Again our fascist courts show why we need more check on them. We should not allow a bunch of people in robes take our liberties.
Nullification.
As I suspected.Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.
You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.
Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review
I knew for certain you would bring up the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
Clue hammer: It's not a church.
Your other link is to a UK story. Geeze.
Not much of a "list."
"In his written decision, Judge Solomon A. Metzger of the Office of Administrative Law found that in March 2007, when Paster and Bernstein filled out a reservation form, the pavilion was a public accommodation.
The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis. Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernsteins application.
...
The pavilion was used for community and charitable events and the owners of the property, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, received a tax exemption from the state Green Acres program, which provides exemptions to non-profit organizations who use their property for recreational or conservation purposes. An important condition of the exemption is that the property be open for public use on an equal basis.
Judge Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couple in Discrimination Case :: ACLU of New Jersey
Public accommodations laws are not motivated by governments desire to protect citizens from discrimination, this is Commerce Clause jurisprudence, concerning Congress regulatory authority only, having nothing to do with discrimination.
Businesses refusing to accommodate patrons based solely on their race or religion would clearly be disruptive to their respective markets, where Congress has both the authority and responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of commerce, as all markets, regardless of size, are interrelated, and ultimately effect interstate commerce.
Go ahead. List the churches who have been brought to court under the Public Accommodations Laws.
You do understand that churches are not buildings, don't you?
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
There are even people that have openly announced that they intend to sue churches.
Couple suing to force church to perform gay marriage - Illinois Review
That a religious organization might be sued in its capacity as a property owner only has nothing to do whatsoever with that religions doctrine and dogma concerning same-sex couples. The same-sex couple is merely using the venue for a wedding ceremony, invoking the rites of a completely different faith, or a civil ceremony absent religious rites.
Such a suit would in no way compel the religious organization to recognize same-sex couples, or compel the religious organization to perform same-sex marriage, or alter its doctrine or dogma in any manner concerning marriage and same-sex couples.
So What What?
Personally I think all (federal and state) public accommodation laws should be repealed and private business owners should recover the right to refuse service for whatever reason they choose.
However my personal opinions don't define reality nor prevent me from discussing laws as they already exist.
>>>>
If the laws are wrong, they are wrong.
According to whom?
You?
You’ll understand if no one finds that the least bit compelling.
"Wrong" is subjective and therefore a personal opinion. :SHRUG: Some think it is "wrong" for the government to have Public Accommodation laws, and some think that it is "Good" for the government to protect citizens from discrimination.
In my opinion it is "wrong", but that has nothing to do with the functioning of the law. Federal Public Accommodation laws have already been upheld by the SCOTUS and under the 10th States have the power to create their own.
>>>>
There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.
There is no law that requires anyone to attend a wedding he objects to.
There is nothing subjective about a law that requires anyone to attend a wedding they object to.
There is no law that requires anyone to attend a wedding he objects to.
You are aware that the photographer had to attend the wedding. In order to take pictures of the wedding, the ceremony, and all the rest, the photographer actually has to be in the venue.
