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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

So does Amendment 1, section 1.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

About your sex change operation?

Oh, you mean having special privileges because of paypal. No memo. Methinks you made it up.

 

[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.

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.

The question on the table is merchants who will not serve Gay clients. SwimExpert says let the market sort it out,. If a vendor refuses service to Gay clientele and only Gay clientele, market forces will soon drive that vendor out of business and no legislation should be brought to bear to ensure fair trade practices.

My argument is; in a small community, there may be only one vendor (baker, photographer, caterer etc.) In such markets, market forces will have little or no impact on the business of a discriminatory vendor. Similarly, if the market is dominated by one huge merchant (i.e. WalMart) market forces will not effect their way of conducting unfair business practices.

Our system of jurisprudence is the only assured leveler of the marketplace. Therefore, discriminatory business practices can be addressed directly rather than the uncertainty of market forces.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So does Amendment 1, section 1.

How was that Person's religious liberty being Infringed, when Labor is willing to get paid to bake a cake regardless of Artwork. Why not help solve our natural rate of unemployment with willing and experienced labor market participants.

Only management that apprenticed at Hostess, does that.

 

[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.

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

 

[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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

 

[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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

I prefer any market based metrics, morals testing for-profit Firms may be able to provide; whenever the Right shows Any hesitance in advancing their Cause and their Faith by walking in the shadow of the valley of Sodom and fearing no evil.

 

[martybegan]

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

 

[martybegan]

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

Only if you have a clue and a Cause.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

If each and every wedding cake costs $3,000 then, no that's not discrimination. If only cakes for Gay weddings cost $3,000 while other wedding cakes sold for 90% less...

Here in my home town, there is one bakery and a grocery store that bakes. The grocery store cakes taste like, well, grocery store cakes. The next baker is in Pennsylvania, about 15 miles away. then there is a baker in West Virginia, but their cakes tasted as if the frosting is made from shortening and powdered sugar.

 

[martybegan]

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

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

Only if you have a clue and a Cause.

So in other words, no.

 

[martybegan]

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

If each and every wedding cake costs $3,000 then, no that's not discrimination. If only cakes for Gay weddings cost $3,000 while other wedding cakes sold for 90% less...

Here in my home town, there is one bakery and a grocery store that bakes. The grocery store cakes taste like, well, grocery store cakes. The next baker is in Pennsylvania, about 15 miles away. then there is a baker in West Virginia, but their cakes tasted as if the frosting is made from shortening and powdered sugar.

So basically its only discrimination if the refusing vendor makes the BEST cakes in the area?

 

[danielpalos]

No, when you try to force someone to do something they don't want to do, its not tolerance, its acceptance. Tolerating is not actively trying to suppress something. What your side wants is acceptance, and using the law to get it is short sighted, and wrong.

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

The right doesn't believe or have Faith in distinguishing religious morality from capital based morality for their Cause--on a not-for-profit basis.

Was that supposed to make some form of sense?

Only if you have a clue and a Cause.

So in other words, no.

you said it; not me.

 

[Nosmo King]

What is refusing service because of a client's legal lifestyle but actively trying to suppress it? According to your definition, the wedding vendor is intolerant as well as not accepting the homosexual client.

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

If each and every wedding cake costs $3,000 then, no that's not discrimination. If only cakes for Gay weddings cost $3,000 while other wedding cakes sold for 90% less...

Here in my home town, there is one bakery and a grocery store that bakes. The grocery store cakes taste like, well, grocery store cakes. The next baker is in Pennsylvania, about 15 miles away. then there is a baker in West Virginia, but their cakes tasted as if the frosting is made from shortening and powdered sugar.

So basically its only discrimination if the refusing vendor makes the BEST cakes in the area?

No. the only way market based reactions to discrimination work is if the market is large enough to have such an impact. therefore, the alternative is the great leveler found in our system of jurisprudence.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

So does Amendment 1, section 1.

How was that Person's religious liberty being Infringed, when Labor is willing to get paid to bake a cake regardless of Artwork. Why not help solve our natural rate of unemployment with willing and experienced labor market participants.

Only management that apprenticed at Hostess, does that.

I'm glad you mentioned artwork because that's what's unique about wedding cakes. The question becomes, can government command even our artistic talents which spring from the very depths of our soul? Any bakery can make a stock cake, but the artist is the only one that can make it unique. How much power does the state have over the individual? One might argue that it has NO POWER to command art, to harness eclectic talent to its devices, to enslave the soul of a person. Such talent can only be an act of volition, not compulsion.

 

[martybegan]

Is the vendor stopping him from going to another baker? Is he proposing laws saying that gay couples can never by cake? He just does not want to participate in their wedding. He doesn't want to stop it.

Again, you want acceptance,not tolerance.

If the baker was TOLERANT! He would bake the cake, provide the exact same service he would for any other client, and move on. If he refuses service due to the client'so LEGAL LIFESTYLE, he is being intolerant because he is seeking to suppress that lifestyle. The merchant has no authority to make such a judgment. He is, in fact, forcing that client to seek alternative accommodations simply because that client is Gay.

If no acceptable alternative is available, the bigoted merchant has indeed suppressed the freedom of the client.

There are plenty of alternative to repressed Gay clients in large markets. But in small towns, those alternative do not necessarily exist. Therefore and market based reprisals are ineffective. Only the rule of law in the guise of public accommodation laws provides equal justice.

You can keep calling acceptance tolerance all you want, but it doesn't change things. and its not simply because the client is gay, its because the event is a gay wedding. That has been gone over countless times.

The government has no authority to force a person to act in a way they do not want to for such a trivial matter as baking a cake. And please show me these one baker counties in the US before you start getting into splitting hairs about availability.

What if the only baker in town charged $3000 per cake? Would that count as discrimination as well?

If each and every wedding cake costs $3,000 then, no that's not discrimination. If only cakes for Gay weddings cost $3,000 while other wedding cakes sold for 90% less...

Here in my home town, there is one bakery and a grocery store that bakes. The grocery store cakes taste like, well, grocery store cakes. The next baker is in Pennsylvania, about 15 miles away. then there is a baker in West Virginia, but their cakes tasted as if the frosting is made from shortening and powdered sugar.

So basically its only discrimination if the refusing vendor makes the BEST cakes in the area?

No. the only way market based reactions to discrimination work is if the market is large enough to have such an impact. therefore, the alternative is the great leveler found in our system of jurisprudence.

And what if the market doesn't care, or understands that people should be able to decide who they want to personally serve or interact with? So you are saying any business that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding or be involved should be put out of business? So the only way to be in business for yourself is to cater to YOUR moral compass?

The measuring stick is the degree of impact, and again, having to go to another baker, even 10 miles away, is far less onerous that saying "bake or suffer." You think the gay couples feelings outweigh the personal beliefs of a person no matter what the situation. I apply even weight to both, and in the end, the gay couple getting another baker is easier than the draconian implementation of thought crimes for businesses.