Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

and don't forget child creation


That's kinda important

And consequently you'll advocate that infertile opposite-sex couples be prohibited from marrying as well.

You can campaign for that if that's what floats your boat.

Dodging my questions? Are they too challenging for honesty?

Bripat disses everyone he doesn't like, but he has favorite 'liberals' he enjoys picking on. So I wouldn't take it personally, as he hates all 'liberals' equally, lol.

You people aren't liberals.

Quite the opposite.

 

[SwimExpert]

The issue is a vendor claiming customers are not worthy of dignity due to who those customers might be.

So, cake is the measure of dignity?

If you're that stupid, than you're not worthy of dignity.

A customer is stripped of dignity when a vendor says she is not worthy of service due to her legal lifestyle.

You're right. That bastard. What a lousy piece of shit that store owner is. Certainly not worthy of your money, nor mine.

Hey, I have an idea! How about instead of crying for government to solve all the problems we the people solve the problem by not giving that piece of shit our money!

 

[rightwinger]

We are talking ala carte Christianity here.
They pick and choose which biblical transgressions they refuse to do business with

Pick one:

Pregnant brides
Adulterers
Atheists
Mixed religions
Gay

Again, YOU don't get to qualify a person's moral compass.

I do get to judge it

And by all appearances, it is hypocricy in how their faith is applied

you get to comment on it, by judging you are more than commenting on it, and you don't have that right, and neither, in this case, does government.

As a dues paying member of USMB I get to judge anyone I wish

I didn't see that in the USMB rules. Did you make that up?

You didn't get the memo?

 

[JoeB131]

There really is only one way for traditional service providers to defend themselves. That is to stop offering their services to the public. The baker sells cakes that have already been made. Cookies, brownies, cupcakes. They sell right out of the display case. That's all they sell. Wedding cakes are by special arrangement and not advertised.

Florists sell any arrangement in the shop. The sell flowers. They don't sell wedding arrangements. Unless the person knows them well enough to make a special request.

Very simple. The gay couple that has been a customer for years will already know this.

The problem there is that if you aren't advertising that you offer that service, you are probably going to lose out to someone who does. So that's really not much of a plan.

Like it or not, that's where the real money is made.

 

[JoeB131]

You're right. That bastard. What a lousy piece of shit that store owner is. Certainly not worthy of your money, nor mine.

Hey, I have an idea! How about instead of crying for government to solve all the problems we the people solve the problem by not giving that piece of shit our money!

The Market doesn't solve all problems. And frankly, as we've seen, it occassionally rewards the bigots, like all those people who donated money to Bigot's Pizza, which wasn't facing any government backlash at all.

 

[Seawytch]

Not about acceptance with a capital "A" but tolerance. Why should someone be so intolerant that commerce and dignity are sacrificed?

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

and don't forget child creation


That's kinda important

You don't have to be married to procreate and vice versa. Gays marrying will stop you from procreating? Can't stop thinking about gays having sex, huh?

More married women in U.S. aren t having children - latimes

Lol, no same sex coupling has ever created a child. Not one.

Not together, but that's not a requirement for civil marriage anywhere in this country. Not a single heterosexual couple is required to have children in order to get a marriage license and the millions that don't have children do not have their license revoked. You cannot require for gays what you don't require for heterosexuals...but you knew that. You're just "butthurt" because you've lost.

 

[Nosmo King]

A customer is stripped of dignity when a vendor says she is not worthy of service due to her legal lifestyle.

I suggest the strip-ee grow a freaking spine.

So basically its all about acceptance, right?

news flash, it isn't right to use the government to force people to accept other people.

Not about acceptance with a capital "A" but tolerance. Why should someone be so intolerant that commerce and dignity are sacrificed?

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

but what are those purposes? What'
is the benefit from being a petty little bully? What good does it produce? Why should repression be a protected right?

 

[Nosmo King]

The issue is a vendor claiming customers are not worthy of dignity due to who those customers might be.

So, cake is the measure of dignity?

If you're that stupid, than you're not worthy of dignity.

A customer is stripped of dignity when a vendor says she is not worthy of service due to her legal lifestyle.

You're right. That bastard. What a lousy piece of shit that store owner is. Certainly not worthy of your money, nor mine.

Hey, I have an idea! How about instead of crying for government to solve all the problems we the people solve the problem by not giving that piece of shit our money!

Okay. But let's back it up by the rule of law. Jurisprudence is not a bad thing and insured justice is even better.

 

[Dragonlady]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

 

[Seawytch]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

I'd have a lot more respect for them if they did turn away all sinners instead of just using their religion to hide their anti gay bigotry. Shit like that makes the baby Jesus cry.

 

[Pop23]

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

and don't forget child creation


That's kinda important

You don't have to be married to procreate and vice versa. Gays marrying will stop you from procreating? Can't stop thinking about gays having sex, huh?

More married women in U.S. aren t having children - latimes

Lol, no same sex coupling has ever created a child. Not one.

Not together, but that's not a requirement for civil marriage anywhere in this country. Not a single heterosexual couple is required to have children in order to get a marriage license and the millions that don't have children do not have their license revoked. You cannot require for gays what you don't require for heterosexuals...but you knew that. You're just "butthurt" because you've lost.

When governmental sanctioned marriage became law it would have been stoopid to include procreation as there was no way to tell which couple could or could not, but we could, even in those time know one thing for sure.......

Same sex couplings have NEVER produced a child

 

[Pop23]

You're right. That bastard. What a lousy piece of shit that store owner is. Certainly not worthy of your money, nor mine.

Hey, I have an idea! How about instead of crying for government to solve all the problems we the people solve the problem by not giving that piece of shit our money!

The Market doesn't solve all problems. And frankly, as we've seen, it occassionally rewards the bigots, like all those people who donated money to Bigot's Pizza, which wasn't facing any government backlash at all.

You do realize that the bigoted pizza place did exactly what you preach, right?

THEY DON'T offer CATERING.

You are either uninformed or simply like calling people names.

 

[hadit]

The idea that those who would refuse provide services to gay weddings are "traditionalists" or they need to defend themselves is absurd.

The idea that you can treat people disrespectfully, refuse them service and then claim to be injured party when they take offence is laughable.

There is no way to defend against such offensive behaviour. Unless you're discriminating against all sinners, in which case you would be no one left you could serve with fearing for you immortal soul, you can't cherry pick among who you choose to turn away.

I'd have a lot more respect for them if they did turn away all sinners instead of just using their religion to hide their anti gay bigotry. Shit like that makes the baby Jesus cry.

Even better, don't turn them away at all. Simply allow every customer their pick of the dozen or so designs that you use on your paper goods, all of which include Bible verses. That way, everyone is treated the same way, and you get increased business from people who appreciate a public declaration of faith. If a hater couple who's trying to trap you into a thought crime or cause you embarrassment doesn't like it, they don't have to coerce you into a contract. Problem solved.

 

[danielpalos]

A customer is stripped of dignity when a vendor says she is not worthy of service due to her legal lifestyle.

I suggest the strip-ee grow a freaking spine.

So basically its all about acceptance, right?

news flash, it isn't right to use the government to force people to accept other people.

Not about acceptance with a capital "A" but tolerance. Why should someone be so intolerant that commerce and dignity are sacrificed?

What difference does it make? Why should someone be so stupid that they can't understand that your preference aren't always what matters? Other people have different priorities.

Different purposes. To what end? What are these purposes?

To perpetuate petty repression? To continue to make others unworthy? To make those different from you feel less than they are?

Why? What good comes of all that fear and hate?

We live in a society and, occasionally, folks will have to interact with each other.

And all that ignorance, suspicion and fear is accomplishing what goal? What is the benefit of being nothing other than a self righteous bully?

Other people's goals are none of you business. They are entitled to serve their own purposes rather than yours.

For-profit Firms are required to make a profit. It really is that simple, Person on the Right. If alleged Christians want to practice discrimination and that form of intolerance, it should be done on a not-for-profit basis so that capital based morality is not impugned.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Market doesn't solve all problems.

Nobody ever said it did. But it's 10 times more effective than then government.

 

[SwimExpert]

Okay. But let's back it up by the rule of law.

Don't use terms you don't understand. This has nothing to do with the rule of law.

Jurisprudence is not a bad thing and insured justice is even better.

There is no such thing as "insured justice." Stop being an entitled twit who thinks government will come down with the power of God and deliver you to Paradise.

 

[danielpalos]

and don't forget child creation


That's kinda important

And consequently you'll advocate that infertile opposite-sex couples be prohibited from marrying as well.

You can campaign for that if that's what floats your boat.

Dodging my questions? Are they too challenging for honesty?

Bripat disses everyone he doesn't like, but he has favorite 'liberals' he enjoys picking on. So I wouldn't take it personally, as he hates all 'liberals' equally, lol.

You people aren't liberals.

Quite the opposite.

Article 4, Section 2 applies to Persons in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, YOU don't get to qualify a person's moral compass.

I do get to judge it

And by all appearances, it is hypocricy in how their faith is applied

you get to comment on it, by judging you are more than commenting on it, and you don't have that right, and neither, in this case, does government.

As a dues paying member of USMB I get to judge anyone I wish

I didn't see that in the USMB rules. Did you make that up?

You didn't get the memo?

i probably did if it didn't come from the left.

 

[Nosmo King]

Okay. But let's back it up by the rule of law.

Don't use terms you don't understand. This has nothing to do with the rule of law.

Jurisprudence is not a bad thing and insured justice is even better.

There is no such thing as "insured justice." Stop being an entitled twit who thinks government will come down with the power of God and deliver you to Paradise.

The problem with the market based solution is scale. If the market is too small, i.e. rural communities, the repressive vendor holds all the cards. There is no alternative for choice. If the market (that is to say the vendor) is too large (i.e. WalMart) their market capabilities outstrip the competition. The great leveler is the rule of law.

 

[danielpalos]

Okay. But let's back it up by the rule of law.

Don't use terms you don't understand. This has nothing to do with the rule of law.

Jurisprudence is not a bad thing and insured justice is even better.

There is no such thing as "insured justice." Stop being an entitled twit who thinks government will come down with the power of God and deliver you to Paradise.

The problem with the market based solution is scale. If the market is too small, i.e. rural communities, the repressive vendor holds all the cards. There is no alternative for choice. If the market (that is to say the vendor) is too large (i.e. WalMart) their market capabilities outstrip the competition. The great leveler is the rule of law.

I agree to disagree on political and economic principles. Supply side economics should be supplying with better governance at lower cost; not trickle down.

Also, ensuring the physical layer of infrastructure can be said to be both necessary and proper for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and to better ensure republican forms of government to each of the several States. That being said, with better infrastructure available, distance would only be a cost factor to any given market in our economy.