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

[JoeB131]

Yep. You've managed to turn government into the bully, rather they the protector. Congratulations.

Guy, again, I've known gay people who've been fired from their jobs when people found out they were gay. I've known people who've been beaten up because they were gay.

I just simply cannot get worked up because a Christian baker has to bake a cake after they said they have cakes for sale and they will be compensated for their time and effort. I really can't.

You see, here's the thing. That same baker probably bakes cakes for women who wear pants in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 or wear gaudy jewelry or their hair in braids in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9. They will bake cakes for men who wear their hair long and women who wear their hair short despite what 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 says. They will bake a cake for a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night in violation of Deuteronomy 22:13. If a woman writes her own vows for the wedding, well, that Christian Baker will have totally forgotten about 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 that will tell that mouthy broad she needs to shut the hell up in Church. And I would hope that Baker isn't working on the Sabbath to finish that cake in violation of Exodus 31:14.

to help you out, I've linked to all the relevant verses.

There's a whole shitload of rules in the bible that Christian Bakers ignore every day. So I'm not going to be impressed if they are claiming a religious exemption against the gays. IT seems like they are using the bible to justify their homophobia, not just doing what the bible tells them.

 

[dblack]

Yep. You've managed to turn government into the bully, rather they the protector. Congratulations.

Guy, again, I've known gay people who've been fired from their jobs when people found out they were gay. I've known people who've been beaten up because they were gay.

I just simply cannot get worked up because a Christian baker has to bake a cake after they said they have cakes for sale and they will be compensated for their time and effort. I really can't.

I can appreciate that. I have no pressing personal interest in defending bigots. And I share a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing the fundies getting a taste of their own medicine. But here's my thing: Liberals used to take pride in standing up for individual rights as a matter of principle, even if meant defending people held in disrepute by the general public (...anyone remember Larry Flynt?). It's what drove us to defend gay rights in the first place.

What I see going on now is disillusioned liberals cynically embracing government as a "big hammer", as you put it, rather than a means of justice. They've adopted the view that there's really no such thing as fundamental rights, and it all comes down to power. I find that repulsive, even when its targets are hateful misanthropes.

 

[JoeB131]

I can appreciate that. I have no pressing personal interest in defending bigots. And I share a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing the fundies getting a taste of their own medicine. But here's my thing: Liberals used to take pride in standing up for individual rights as a matter of principle, even if meant defending people held in disrepute by the general public (...anyone remember Larry Flynt?). It's what drove us to defend gay rights in the first place.

Nothing Larry Flynt was doing was hurting anyone else. If you didn't like Hustler, don't buy it.

Denying someone service after they went to the trouble of driving to your shop actually does cause a problem.

What I see going on now is disillusioned liberals cynically embracing government as a "big hammer", as you put it, rather than a means of justice. They've adopted the view that there's really no such thing as fundamental rights, and it all comes down to power. I find that repulsive, even its targets are hateful misanthropes.

First, guy, I'm not a liberal. I'm a pragmatist.

Second, yes, I do want a big hammer to get shit done.

Third, the thing is, the misery that we are feeling is because that fucking idiot Bush got a second term. He got a second term because homophobic assholes all came out for him in 2004 because he promised that he'd prevent gay marriage. (Ignore that Cheney's daughter is a box-muncher!)

So I don't mind bringing the big hammer down on their asses after they've caused so much misery for absolutely nothing. If I have to live with the Underwater Mortgage Bush inflicted on us, and some veteran has to live without his legs, then these CHRISTIAN ASSHOLES can suck it up and bake the fucking cake! Or they can close down their bakery and do something that doesn't offend their supersitious sensiblities. I simply don't care which.

 

[bripat9643]

The people are siding with the Christians.

Uh, no, they really aren't.


With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule this spring on whether same-sex couples nationwide should have the right to marry, a gay rights organization on Friday released a new survey showing support for gay marriage at 60 percent among likely voters in the 2016 election.

Read more: Poll 60 percent of likely voters back gay marriage - Steven Shepard - POLITICO

Oh, but it gets worse for you guys.

Polling Finds Growing Acceptance of Gay Marriage and a Gay President - Washington Wire - WSJ

Every time there has been a referendum, gay marriage has been voted down.

 

[bripat9643]

I can appreciate that. I have no pressing personal interest in defending bigots. And I share a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing the fundies getting a taste of their own medicine. But here's my thing: Liberals used to take pride in standing up for individual rights as a matter of principle, even if meant defending people held in disrepute by the general public (...anyone remember Larry Flynt?). It's what drove us to defend gay rights in the first place.

Nothing Larry Flynt was doing was hurting anyone else. If you didn't like Hustler, don't buy it.

Denying someone service after they went to the trouble of driving to your shop actually does cause a problem.

What I see going on now is disillusioned liberals cynically embracing government as a "big hammer", as you put it, rather than a means of justice. They've adopted the view that there's really no such thing as fundamental rights, and it all comes down to power. I find that repulsive, even its targets are hateful misanthropes.

First, guy, I'm not a liberal. I'm a pragmatist.

Second, yes, I do want a big hammer to get shit done.

Third, the thing is, the misery that we are feeling is because that fucking idiot Bush got a second term. He got a second term because homophobic assholes all came out for him in 2004 because he promised that he'd prevent gay marriage. (Ignore that Cheney's daughter is a box-muncher!)

So I don't mind bringing the big hammer down on their asses after they've caused so much misery for absolutely nothing. If I have to live with the Underwater Mortgage Bush inflicted on us, and some veteran has to live without his legs, then these CHRISTIAN ASSHOLES can suck it up and bake the fucking cake! Or they can close down their bakery and do something that doesn't offend their supersitious sensiblities. I simply don't care which.

You're a Stalinist, Joe. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[dblack]

I can appreciate that. I have no pressing personal interest in defending bigots. And I share a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing the fundies getting a taste of their own medicine. But here's my thing: Liberals used to take pride in standing up for individual rights as a matter of principle, even if meant defending people held in disrepute by the general public (...anyone remember Larry Flynt?). It's what drove us to defend gay rights in the first place.

Nothing Larry Flynt was doing was hurting anyone else. If you didn't like Hustler, don't buy it.

Denying someone service after they went to the trouble of driving to your shop actually does cause a problem.

What I see going on now is disillusioned liberals cynically embracing government as a "big hammer", as you put it, rather than a means of justice. They've adopted the view that there's really no such thing as fundamental rights, and it all comes down to power. I find that repulsive, even its targets are hateful misanthropes.

First, guy, I'm not a liberal. I'm a pragmatist.

Second, yes, I do want a big hammer to get shit done.

Third, the thing is, the misery that we are feeling is because that fucking idiot Bush got a second term. He got a second term because homophobic assholes all came out for him in 2004 because he promised that he'd prevent gay marriage. (Ignore that Cheney's daughter is a box-muncher!)

So I don't mind bringing the big hammer down on their asses after they've caused so much misery for absolutely nothing. If I have to live with the Underwater Mortgage Bush inflicted on us, and some veteran has to live without his legs, then these CHRISTIAN ASSHOLES can suck it up and bake the fucking cake! Or they can close down their bakery and do something that doesn't offend their supersitious sensiblities. I simply don't care which.

Which is pretty much what I said. You're not a liberal. You're an authoritarian. Government for you is just a means of beating up on people you don't like. Of course your folly is the delusion that you have any control over who's getting the shakedown. What goes around, comes around.

 

[danielpalos]

Dudes and Esquires,

There is no public policy exception to Commerce (well regulated) on a for-profit basis in favor of ideology; we have a Commerce Clause.

 

[mdk]

The people are siding with the Christians.

Uh, no, they really aren't.


With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule this spring on whether same-sex couples nationwide should have the right to marry, a gay rights organization on Friday released a new survey showing support for gay marriage at 60 percent among likely voters in the 2016 election.

Read more: Poll 60 percent of likely voters back gay marriage - Steven Shepard - POLITICO

Oh, but it gets worse for you guys.

Polling Finds Growing Acceptance of Gay Marriage and a Gay President - Washington Wire - WSJ

Every time there has been a referendum, gay marriage has been voted down.

The states of Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota prove your statement to be incorrect.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays will just find it a teensy bit harder to find what they want. Their favorite bakery might not make wedding cakes any more. Unless it's for a personal friend.

 

[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.

Conservatives have been doing that for years.

Your side just is upset that gays are actually using the law that protects them from discrimination.

This is very true. But do two wrongs make a right? Or is this the wake up call we need to put a stop to this kind of government.

What are these TWO wrongs? On one hand a paying customer is asking for the exact same services a vendor supplies to all his other customers. These paying customers are not demanding anything not normally provided by the vendor. No special or unusual items, nothing above and beyond the services otherwise provided. Please stop me and point out what is wrong about that.

On the other hand, a vendor is refusing service to paying customers due to who those customers happen to be. Refusal due to their legal lifestyle. Refusal simply because the vendor finds that customer's lifestyle to be "icky". Is this fair? Does this mercantile approval of lifestyle make the customers who were refused equal to all other customers?

TWO wrongs? I see one blatant wrong and one discriminated paying customer.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Conservatives have been doing that for years.

Your side just is upset that gays are actually using the law that protects them from discrimination.

This is very true. But do two wrongs make a right? Or is this the wake up call we need to put a stop to this kind of government.

What are these TWO wrongs? On one hand a paying customer is asking for the exact same services a vendor supplies to all his other customers. These paying customers are not demanding anything not normally provided by the vendor. No special or unusual items, nothing above and beyond the services otherwise provided. Please stop me and point out what is wrong about that.

On the other hand, a vendor is refusing service to paying customers due to who those customers happen to be. Refusal due to their legal lifestyle. Refusal simply because the vendor finds that customer's lifestyle to be "icky". Is this fair? Does this mercantile approval of lifestyle make the customers who were refused equal to all other customers?

TWO wrongs? I see one blatant wrong and one discriminated paying customer.

You are wrong. That vendor will sell gays anything in the store. What that vendor refuses to do is personally participate in the event.

 

[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.

Conservatives have been doing that for years.

Your side just is upset that gays are actually using the law that protects them from discrimination.

This is very true. But do two wrongs make a right? Or is this the wake up call we need to put a stop to this kind of government.

What are these TWO wrongs? On one hand a paying customer is asking for the exact same services a vendor supplies to all his other customers. These paying customers are not demanding anything not normally provided by the vendor. No special or unusual items, nothing above and beyond the services otherwise provided. Please stop me and point out what is wrong about that.

On the other hand, a vendor is refusing service to paying customers due to who those customers happen to be. Refusal due to their legal lifestyle. Refusal simply because the vendor finds that customer's lifestyle to be "icky". Is this fair? Does this mercantile approval of lifestyle make the customers who were refused equal to all other customers?

TWO wrongs? I see one blatant wrong and one discriminated paying customer.

You are wrong. That vendor will sell gays anything in the store. What that vendor refuses to do is personally participate in the event.

The vendor is not an invited guest. The vendor does not give away the bride. The vendor does not officiate the ceremony. The vendor does not catch the bouquet. The vendor is not seated at the head table, or any table. The vendor does not give a gift. The vendor does not throw rice. There is no dance set aside for the vendor.

The vendor bakes, decorates and delivers a cake to the reception venue usually hours before the ACTUAL WEDDING PARTY arrives.

Put simply, the vendor is not a participant in the wedding.

Claiming the vendor is a participant is hyperbole at the least, a massive breech of the mandate of the vendor at worst. It's a lame argument to claim the vendor "participates" in the wedding.

 

[Katzndogz]

The vendor must go. Must in some way indicate approval of the event every bit as much as an invited guest.

Aside from that, the services required are artistic services. No artist should ever be required to create against their will.

 

[Seawytch]

The people are siding with the Christians.

Uh, no, they really aren't.


With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule this spring on whether same-sex couples nationwide should have the right to marry, a gay rights organization on Friday released a new survey showing support for gay marriage at 60 percent among likely voters in the 2016 election.

Read more: Poll 60 percent of likely voters back gay marriage - Steven Shepard - POLITICO

Oh, but it gets worse for you guys.

Polling Finds Growing Acceptance of Gay Marriage and a Gay President - Washington Wire - WSJ

Every time there has been a referendum, gay marriage has been voted down.

You keep repeating that lie despite being proven wrong. Three states have passed marriage equality by a popular vote..

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Conservatives have been doing that for years.

Your side just is upset that gays are actually using the law that protects them from discrimination.

This is very true. But do two wrongs make a right? Or is this the wake up call we need to put a stop to this kind of government.

What are these TWO wrongs? On one hand a paying customer is asking for the exact same services a vendor supplies to all his other customers. These paying customers are not demanding anything not normally provided by the vendor. No special or unusual items, nothing above and beyond the services otherwise provided. Please stop me and point out what is wrong about that.

On the other hand, a vendor is refusing service to paying customers due to who those customers happen to be. Refusal due to their legal lifestyle. Refusal simply because the vendor finds that customer's lifestyle to be "icky". Is this fair? Does this mercantile approval of lifestyle make the customers who were refused equal to all other customers?

TWO wrongs? I see one blatant wrong and one discriminated paying customer.

You are wrong. That vendor will sell gays anything in the store. What that vendor refuses to do is personally participate in the event.

Like there is no Labor that could have substituted; even with a "shield money" bonus. is it Any wonder some on the left believe we should look on EquityNet for Capitalists instead of the Right.

 

[Dragonlady]

The vendor must go. Must in some way indicate approval of the event every bit as much as an invited guest.

Aside from that, the services required are artistic services. No artist should ever be required to create against their will.

The cake vendor does NOT go to the wedding, nor does the flower vendor. The caterer goes to the reception obviously but not the wedding. The cake vendor or their delivery person takes the cake to the venue and that's it.

Only on reality TV does the cake vendor appear at the event.

 

[Katzndogz]

The people are siding with the Christians.

Uh, no, they really aren't.


With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule this spring on whether same-sex couples nationwide should have the right to marry, a gay rights organization on Friday released a new survey showing support for gay marriage at 60 percent among likely voters in the 2016 election.

Read more: Poll 60 percent of likely voters back gay marriage - Steven Shepard - POLITICO

Oh, but it gets worse for you guys.

Polling Finds Growing Acceptance of Gay Marriage and a Gay President - Washington Wire - WSJ

Every time there has been a referendum, gay marriage has been voted down.

You keep repeating that lie despite being proven wrong. Three states have passed marriage equality by a popular vote..

Then they should have it. With appropriate protections for those who do not wish to participate.

 

[Katzndogz]

The vendor must go. Must in some way indicate approval of the event every bit as much as an invited guest.

Aside from that, the services required are artistic services. No artist should ever be required to create against their will.

The cake vendor does NOT go to the wedding, nor does the flower vendor. The caterer goes to the reception obviously but not the wedding. The cake vendor or their delivery person takes the cake to the venue and that's it.

Only on reality TV does the cake vendor appear at the event.

Then have the delivery curbside. In an unmarked vehicle and unlabeled boxes. The cake can be constructed by the happy couple.

 

[danielpalos]

some on the left prefer to be better capitalists than that.

 

[SwimExpert]

Idiot, how many times do I have to tell you? I support gay marriage 100% and I always have.

But you are siding with the bigots on this issue. So that you jumped on the bandwagon after it almost crossed the finish line doesn't impress me.

Jesus Christ Joe, you are one stupid son of a bitch.