Refusal over personal beliefs

[HappyJoy]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

He cancelled the concert, everyone who had bought a ticket was treated the same.

 

[eagle1462010]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

He cancelled the concert, everyone who had bought a ticket was treated the same.

So..............he denied service to all because of his personal beliefs...................

 

[HappyJoy]

The Wedding department?

Ok, I've just realized you're a kid, you have to be and I feel really bad saying not nice things to you and insulting your intelligence. At least at your age (18 or younger?) you have an interest in politics and that's a good start, to be involved. Maybe when you grow up a little you'll have more of an understanding.

Marriage dept......professor dumb ass................and yes transfers at any business can be arranged.....................To the kid remark..............

Who the fuck cares what you think......I think I've made that very clear with my opinions on this board.............

The Marriage department? Really?

Texas gay marriage: How to get a marriage license in Travis County | All Ablog Austin

Now

You should be the one quietly going away, you've done yourself no favors at all.

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

 

[HappyJoy]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

He cancelled the concert, everyone who had bought a ticket was treated the same.

So..............he denied service to all because of his personal beliefs...................

Sure, if that makes you feel better.

 

[kaz]

Musicians can't refuse paying customers for illegal reasons .

You can't have a concert and refuse to let Christians attend . That would be illegal because you opened up that concert to the public .

Yep. And Bruce isn't letting blacks attend, a clear violation of PA laws. He's also not letting gays attend, he's a clear homophobe

He is treating everyone equally in cancelling his concert. Your argument is obviously flawed.

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

Not what I said. He should be fined a hundred housand for every customer he didn't serve. You know, like if he didn't bake cakes for them

 

[kaz]

He is treating everyone equally in cancelling his concert. Your argument is obviously flawed.

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

I'm not getting this Springsteen thing. When did he ban blacks from a concert?

Well, according to wingnuts, Springsteen disenfranchised blacks when he cancelled the concert for everyone. And Kaz is out PCing fucking everyone by claiming this hurts blacks.

Not just blacks. Gays, Latinos, women, Christians, Muslims, old people, young people. Apparently Springsteen only likes middle aged white men

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep. And Bruce isn't letting blacks attend, a clear violation of PA laws. He's also not letting gays attend, he's a clear homophobe

He is treating everyone equally in cancelling his concert. Your argument is obviously flawed.

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

Not what I said. He should be fined a hundred housand for every customer he didn't serve. You know, like if he didn't bake cakes for them

If I hadn't read hundreds of your posts, I'd say you can't be serious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

The above is why conservatism is dead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

He cancelled the concert, everyone who had bought a ticket was treated the same.

These people have conjured up every fallacious analogy imaginable on this topic.

 

[bripat9643]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

The above is why conservatism is dead.

You didn't answer the question. We'll interpret that to mean that you admit Bruce Springsteen becomes a public accommodation when he stages a concert.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage dept......professor dumb ass................and yes transfers at any business can be arranged.....................To the kid remark..............

Who the fuck cares what you think......I think I've made that very clear with my opinions on this board.............

The Marriage department? Really?

Texas gay marriage: How to get a marriage license in Travis County | All Ablog Austin

Now

You should be the one quietly going away, you've done yourself no favors at all.

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

The problem is quite common. I recall someone telling me about when I was going to college. None of the local bars in the town where I went to school wanted to admit gays because it wouldn't be long before they were overrun with queers. No straight guy wants to own a gay bar.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yep. And Bruce isn't letting blacks attend, a clear violation of PA laws. He's also not letting gays attend, he's a clear homophobe

He is treating everyone equally in cancelling his concert. Your argument is obviously flawed.

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

Not what I said. He should be fined a hundred housand for every customer he didn't serve. You know, like if he didn't bake cakes for them

Well, no, that's not how the law works. sorry.

 

[HappyJoy]

The Marriage department? Really?

Texas gay marriage: How to get a marriage license in Travis County | All Ablog Austin

Now

You should be the one quietly going away, you've done yourself no favors at all.

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

The problem is quite common. I recall someone telling me about when I was going to college. None of the local bars in the town where I went to school wanted to admit gays because it wouldn't be long before they were overrun with queers. No straight guy wants to own a gay bar.

That doesn't demonstrate a common problem. You pulled it out of your butt.

 

[HappyJoy]

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

I'm not getting this Springsteen thing. When did he ban blacks from a concert?

Well, according to wingnuts, Springsteen disenfranchised blacks when he cancelled the concert for everyone. And Kaz is out PCing fucking everyone by claiming this hurts blacks.

Not just blacks. Gays, Latinos, women, Christians, Muslims, old people, young people. Apparently Springsteen only likes middle aged white men

He gave a concert in North Carolina for only middle aged white men? No, Bruce, say it ain't so.

 

[bripat9643]

Texas gay marriage: How to get a marriage license in Travis County | All Ablog Austin

Now

You should be the one quietly going away, you've done yourself no favors at all.

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

The problem is quite common. I recall someone telling me about when I was going to college. None of the local bars in the town where I went to school wanted to admit gays because it wouldn't be long before they were overrun with queers. No straight guy wants to own a gay bar.

That doesn't demonstrate a common problem. You pulled it out of your butt.

It's not a problem any longer because it's illegal. If queers take over your bar, your only solution is to sell. However, a few decades ago bar owners could still kick out queers if they wanted to. More than a few did, which makes it "common."

 

[tyroneweaver]

Did any bands perform a concert but refuse entry to Christians? Maybe they told straight people that they were not permitted to attend? Yes?

Did any Christian cake makers say homo's couldn't enter their stores?

 

[kaz]

He is treating everyone equally in cancelling his concert. Your argument is obviously flawed.

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

Not what I said. He should be fined a hundred housand for every customer he didn't serve. You know, like if he didn't bake cakes for them

Well, no, that's not how the law works. sorry.

Yes, liberalism is a pick and choose ideology based on how you feel about a particular issue. It makes perfect sense to you that PA laws apply to baking a cake but not playing a guitar, doesn't it?

 

[HappyJoy]

You should be the one quietly going away, you've done yourself no favors at all.

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

The problem is quite common. I recall someone telling me about when I was going to college. None of the local bars in the town where I went to school wanted to admit gays because it wouldn't be long before they were overrun with queers. No straight guy wants to own a gay bar.

That doesn't demonstrate a common problem. You pulled it out of your butt.

It's not a problem any longer because it's illegal. If queers take over your bar, your only solution is to sell. However, a few decades ago bar owners could still kick out queers if they wanted to. More than a few did, which makes it "common."

Yep, you still haven't shown where this is or ever was a problem.

 

[HappyJoy]

Correct .

Just as if the bakery decided to shut down the business rather than serve gays . That would be legal . But they didn't do that.

But unlike Bruce, while the business didn't want to serve gays, they did serve blacks. Bruce isn't serving blacks or gays. So that makes it OK? Widespread bigotry is good for you, just not selective bigotry?

He cancels a concert and you are choosing to select which groups of people have to get refunds? Very odd way to fail miserably to make a point.

Not what I said. He should be fined a hundred housand for every customer he didn't serve. You know, like if he didn't bake cakes for them

Well, no, that's not how the law works. sorry.

Yes, liberalism is a pick and choose ideology based on how you feel about a particular issue. It makes perfect sense to you that PA laws apply to baking a cake but not playing a guitar, doesn't it?

Nope, let me tell you why.

If Ted Nugent chose to cancel a show for whatever political reason and refund everyone's money then PA laws would not apply. Just as if a baker chose to close their business because they didn't like whatever laws are in place in their community, they could and PA laws wouldn't be an issue.

You guys, seriously have some awful arguments in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

The problem is quite common. I recall someone telling me about when I was going to college. None of the local bars in the town where I went to school wanted to admit gays because it wouldn't be long before they were overrun with queers. No straight guy wants to own a gay bar.

That doesn't demonstrate a common problem. You pulled it out of your butt.

It's not a problem any longer because it's illegal. If queers take over your bar, your only solution is to sell. However, a few decades ago bar owners could still kick out queers if they wanted to. More than a few did, which makes it "common."

Yep, you still haven't shown where this is or ever was a problem.

I only have personal experience. You can dispute it all you want, but anyone who went to bars in the 80s knows it's true.