same sex Marriage question

[WorldWatcher]

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Actually, as usual, it means you are ignorant. Under many public accomodation laws anyone that offers a good, product, or service to the public has to make it available to everyone. In other words, of you perform marriages, or rent your church facilities out for marriages, you are fucked if a same sex couple decides to score some quick cash.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/aug/07082104

1. If you offer for sale or rental your services or facilities to the general public, then under those state laws, yes you have engaged in commerce. Commerce is not a religious activity. If you don't want to be considered a public entity in terms of public accommodation, then don't sell goods and services in the public market. Keep such sales and services private, as in a private club or within the confines of the congregation. Once you open things up for the general population, then they have issues under the law.

2. As to your link, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) is not a Church - it is a separate and distinct non-profit organization. You should do a little more research instead of relying on "lifesitenews". The OGCMA was a non-profit organization owned the boardwalk and surrounding property along the beach. The OGCMA applied for and received a special, non-religious tax exemption under the New Jersey "Green Acres" Program. As a condition of that special, non-religious tax exemption - they agreed to the condition that the property would be open to use by the public. Which was fine until members of the public wanted to use the Pavilion and those members were lesbian. The lesbian's didn't "sue" the OGCMA, the filed a complaint for denial of access to the Pavilion that the OGCMA had agreed would be available to the public in exchange for not having to pay taxes on it. (BTW - If the property in question was really a church, then property taxes wouldn't have been required because religious property is exempt from property taxes.)


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

I have a challenge for you, try to think.

The question was not whether a government would force them to perform a marriage, it was could they be sued?

Want to back up and actually answer the question that was asked, or do you prefer to act like an pompous ass?

Any person can sue any other person for any reason they want, whether someone can file a lawsuit is not the question - whether such action would be successful is the question.

Have interracial couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interracial marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have interfaith couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interfaith marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have divorced couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an divorced marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have same-sex couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an same-sex marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.


>>>>

Can you prove your assertions, or are they simply based on your arrogant belief that you know everything?

Note, I agree with you that such suit should, and probably will, lose. I just doubt that, in this country, that it always happens that way.

In fact, I can imagine some circumstances where I might actually come down on the side of the couples who filed the suit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Actually, as usual, it means you are ignorant. Under many public accomodation laws anyone that offers a good, product, or service to the public has to make it available to everyone. In other words, of you perform marriages, or rent your church facilities out for marriages, you are fucked if a same sex couple decides to score some quick cash.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/aug/07082104

1. If you offer for sale or rental your services or facilities to the general public, then under those state laws, yes you have engaged in commerce. Commerce is not a religious activity. If you don't want to be considered a public entity in terms of public accommodation, then don't sell goods and services in the public market. Keep such sales and services private, as in a private club or within the confines of the congregation. Once you open things up for the general population, then they have issues under the law.

2. As to your link, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) is not a Church - it is a separate and distinct non-profit organization. You should do a little more research instead of relying on "lifesitenews". The OGCMA was a non-profit organization owned the boardwalk and surrounding property along the beach. The OGCMA applied for and received a special, non-religious tax exemption under the New Jersey "Green Acres" Program. As a condition of that special, non-religious tax exemption - they agreed to the condition that the property would be open to use by the public. Which was fine until members of the public wanted to use the Pavilion and those members were lesbian. The lesbian's didn't "sue" the OGCMA, the filed a complaint for denial of access to the Pavilion that the OGCMA had agreed would be available to the public in exchange for not having to pay taxes on it. (BTW - If the property in question was really a church, then property taxes wouldn't have been required because religious property is exempt from property taxes.)


>>>>

The fact that you don't think the group is a church does not mean they do not think of themselves as a church. And, as you yourself pointed out, marriages are religious ceremonies in the eyes of churches. I don't give a fuck what the law says they agreed to, just like I don't give a fuck that the law used to make slavery legal. The law is wrong.

Feel free to justify the law in an stupid attempt to prove that you are right.

 

[Expat]

Churches baptize and marry people and refuse to marry people based on their own criteria without interference so far. And I can't picture a same sex couple wanting to have their happy day with someone who doesn't want to see them married. The photographer story is just bizarre. I guess the US is more litigious because to my knowledge, no one is making them marry same sex couples in places where it has been legalized so far. Weird, weird, weird.

 

[jtw4796]

Someone Correct me if I am wrong, didn't when New York passed same sex marriage they have to write something in to it to protect churches or it would not have passed. This makes it sound like some law makers have the same fears I do.
also as a conservative christian I do not hate gays, I think they should be givin the rights married couples have. I just happen to believe marriage started as a religious ceremony and as such should be left up to the churches. I would favor same sex marriage if I felt it was a civil ceremony, thus my feelings of 2 different marriage ceremonies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually, as usual, it means you are ignorant. Under many public accomodation laws anyone that offers a good, product, or service to the public has to make it available to everyone. In other words, of you perform marriages, or rent your church facilities out for marriages, you are fucked if a same sex couple decides to score some quick cash.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/aug/07082104

1. If you offer for sale or rental your services or facilities to the general public, then under those state laws, yes you have engaged in commerce. Commerce is not a religious activity. If you don't want to be considered a public entity in terms of public accommodation, then don't sell goods and services in the public market. Keep such sales and services private, as in a private club or within the confines of the congregation. Once you open things up for the general population, then they have issues under the law.

2. As to your link, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) is not a Church - it is a separate and distinct non-profit organization. You should do a little more research instead of relying on "lifesitenews". The OGCMA was a non-profit organization owned the boardwalk and surrounding property along the beach. The OGCMA applied for and received a special, non-religious tax exemption under the New Jersey "Green Acres" Program. As a condition of that special, non-religious tax exemption - they agreed to the condition that the property would be open to use by the public. Which was fine until members of the public wanted to use the Pavilion and those members were lesbian. The lesbian's didn't "sue" the OGCMA, the filed a complaint for denial of access to the Pavilion that the OGCMA had agreed would be available to the public in exchange for not having to pay taxes on it. (BTW - If the property in question was really a church, then property taxes wouldn't have been required because religious property is exempt from property taxes.)


>>>>

The fact that you don't think the group is a church does not mean they do not think of themselves as a church. And, as you yourself pointed out, marriages are religious ceremonies in the eyes of churches. I don't give a fuck what the law says they agreed to, just like I don't give a fuck that the law used to make slavery legal. The law is wrong.

Feel free to justify the law in an stupid attempt to prove that you are right.

I commonly voice my opposition of Public Accommodation laws, however, the OGCMA was not sited under Public Accommodation laws, they were sited under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.

The non-profit organization entered into a contractual agreement with the State. The agreed to make the boardwalk and pavilion available to the public and in exchange the non-church property would not be subject to property tax. For years they took that tax exemption, however when members of the public tried to use the pavilion - they refused.

You enter a contract and break the contract and there are repercussions. In this case the only repercussion was that the OGCMA lost the tax exempt status of the pavilion. As the owners of the property, the OGCMA was free to leave the agreement and treat the property as private property. But that's not what the OGCMA wanted. They wanted the tax exemption to allow public access, but be able to pick and choose which members of the public could use the facility.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Someone Correct me if I am wrong, didn't when New York passed same sex marriage they have to write something in to it to protect churches or it would not have passed. This makes it sound like some law makers have the same fears I do.
also as a conservative christian I do not hate gays, I think they should be givin the rights married couples have. I just happen to believe marriage started as a religious ceremony and as such should be left up to the churches. I would favor same sex marriage if I felt it was a civil ceremony, thus my feelings of 2 different marriage ceremonies.

Legally there was no requirement to have to write extra provisions into the law to protect Churches. The additional statement was written into the law from a political standpoint to make it more palatable for some representatives in the legislature

Basically it was "cover your ass" language to pull the teeth of the argument that Churches would be forced to perform Same-sex Religious Ceremonies.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have a challenge for you, try to think.

The question was not whether a government would force them to perform a marriage, it was could they be sued?

Want to back up and actually answer the question that was asked, or do you prefer to act like an pompous ass?

Any person can sue any other person for any reason they want, whether someone can file a lawsuit is not the question - whether such action would be successful is the question.

Have interracial couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interracial marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have interfaith couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interfaith marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have divorced couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an divorced marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have same-sex couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an same-sex marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.


>>>>

Can you prove your assertions, or are they simply based on your arrogant belief that you know everything?

Note, I agree with you that such suit should, and probably will, lose. I just doubt that, in this country, that it always happens that way.

In fact, I can imagine some circumstances where I might actually come down on the side of the couples who filed the suit.

You want me to prove a negative (that Churches haven't been sued)? That's silly. You prove (as in provide factual evidence) to support a positive statement.


If your position is that Churches have been sued (and lost) and have been forced by the government to perform Religious Marriages - bring forth the case.


>>>>

 

[PJC]

Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?

The Supreme court does not make laws, they interpret them and no federal law has been enacted to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore they cannot make something legal that doesn't exist.

If the Justices truly believe in the Constitution then they would let the States make the decision about marriage themselves. It is not a federal issue.

The Supreme Court certainly can make it legal in every state if they rule upon the right to get married or rule on it as a privacy issue, as they did with Roe v. Wade. And, given the cases before them now, they have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

Excuse me? Did you think they said pains when they were passing out brains?

3rd grade child's ad hominem. Oft times when a person relies heavily on them, it's an indication that they may have little to no facts or logic to support their views, hence they must bolster their rebuttals with nonsensical juvenile twaddle. Yours is a sterling example of this.

Marriage cannot possibly be a privacy issue. All marriage licenses are a matter of public record, and the government regulates every freaking aspect of them. Only a complete idiot would even try to argue on that basis.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your assumption that Marriage is not a privacy issue in four separate cases:
Griswald v Connecticut,
Loving v Virginia
Zablocki v. Redhail
and
Boddie v. Connecticut.

You're wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?

The Supreme court does not make laws, they interpret them and no federal law has been enacted to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore they cannot make something legal that doesn't exist.

If the Justices truly believe in the Constitution then they would let the States make the decision about marriage themselves. It is not a federal issue.

The issue has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, but the 14th; and the issue has nothing to do with whether or not a Federal law has been enacted to ‘legalize’ same-sex marriage.

The issue has to do with equal protection rights, and the fact that the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all persons within their jurisdiction access to all state laws, including marriage law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Federal court judge’s ruling that Proposition 8 indeed violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, and invalidated the measure accordingly. Those rulings are currently under review by the Supreme Court.

If the justices truly believe in the Constitution, then they’d affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court certainly can make it legal in every state if they rule upon the right to get married or rule on it as a privacy issue, as they did with Roe v. Wade. And, given the cases before them now, they have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

Excuse me? Did you think they said pains when they were passing out brains?

3rd grade child's ad hominem. Oft times when a person relies heavily on them, it's an indication that they may have little to no facts or logic to support their views, hence they must bolster their rebuttals with nonsensical juvenile twaddle. Yours is a sterling example of this.

Marriage cannot possibly be a privacy issue. All marriage licenses are a matter of public record, and the government regulates every freaking aspect of them. Only a complete idiot would even try to argue on that basis.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your assumption that Marriage is not a privacy issue in four separate cases:
Griswald v Connecticut,
Loving v Virginia
Zablocki v. Redhail
and
Boddie v. Connecticut.

You're wrong.

True, marriage indeed concerns privacy rights, nothing could be more personal and beyond the purview of the state than whom one elects to marry.

 

[PJC]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

I suppose they could be sued, but I doubt the suit would be very successful for the simple reason that marriage is a legal contract and a legal ceremony which does not require the involvement of a preacher. If a pastor refused to conduct a same sex marriage, he would probably be within his 1st Amendment rights because the couple would have the option of going to a Justice of the Peace.

If a couple demanded a church marriage, which is only a ceremony with no legally binding effect without a state issued marriage license, they'd run head on against the 1st Amendment.

Never forget that in the debate over same sex marriage, we're talking about two separate and very distinct marriage ceremonies. One is religious and non-binding without the involvement of the state, and the other is a state, or secular, marriage which is contractual in nature.

It helps to never confuse the two.....but, most people do.

New Mexico filed suit against a photographer for not photographing a gay wedding, and Washington just filed suit against a baker for not making the cake for a gay wedding. I seriously doubt either of those places were the only fucking business in the city that did that type of thing, yet they are still getting sued. Want to explain that using your theory that people can always go someplace else?

New Mexico photographer:

New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that Elane Photography had violated that state's Human Rights Act, and the justices rejected the Albuquerque studio’s argument that taking the job would cause it to disobey its owners' Christian beliefs. The court upheld the nearly $7,000 fine in finding that the studio is a “public accommodation” — an establishment that provides services to the public — that, under state law, may not refuse its services on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or sexual orientation, gender identity or physical or mental handicap.

and

Washington Baker (only one I could find about that happened not in Washington but in Oregon and it was a consumer complaint):

Laurel Bowman filed the consumer complaint last month, writing that Klein denied service and called the couple “abominations unto the Lord.”
State law says it is a violation for a business to deny “full and equal accommodations” for customers based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other factors.
The state attorney general’s office is investigating. If cause is found, it can file a discrimination complaint with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries.
Brad Avakian, the bureau commissioner, told KGW that declining to make the cake “likely could be” against the Oregon law.
“Regardless of one’s religious belief, if you open up a store, and you open it up to the public to sell goods, you cannot discriminate in Oregon under our civil rights laws,” he said.

Public Accommodation and nondiscrimination laws apply. One’s religious beliefs do not give justification to break the law. When one opens a store to the public, they should do so with the knowledge that they must abide by all appropriate ordinances.

Wait, wait but according to Quantum Windbag, “Fuck the Law”. One’s religious beliefs justify breaking the law even if it extends beyond one’s self and violates the rights of others.

So, according to Windbag, if those Satanists (yeah, it’s a religion) down the street want to perform a human sacrifice on another persons, Windbag says; “Go ahead, fuck the law, fuck everybody else….your religious beliefs take precedence.”

Never forget that what we are actually talking about here is so far beyond your comprehension that it is like talking to a mouse about how to make cheese.

???? mouse??? cheese??? That’s a weird-ass and dimwitted ad hominem, there. Whachyoo be smokin’ bruh?

 

[PJC]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

No government can force a clergy person to marry anyone, per the 1st Amendment.

Not every government in the world is restricted by the Constitution Jake, you really should stop lying. This is the 4th I have caught you in since you tried to say you don't lie.

Dude, the fact that Jake put "per the 1st Amendment" logically means that he was implying in the United States. Jeez, you don't seem to be all that adept at basic comprehension and common sense, eh?

And you call him a liar unjustly; your confusion doesn't mean others are lying.

 

[PJC]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

I have a challenge for you, try to think.
aaah hahahaha. What are you?....8 years old? Dude, you seem to have a whole barrel full of half-witted, grade school retorts, but not much else.

It's patently obvious that worldwatcher has no problem thinking. He made quite intelligible and logical observations. As a rebuttal, you answered with the equivalent of "ninny ninny boo boo". Pretty clear that he's kicking yer backside (intellectually speaking, of course).

The question was not whether a government would force them to perform a marriage, it was could they be sued?
You're either being pedantic or you have a hard time comprehending others' basic English. He was speaking about them being sued. A person would be forced to do something if the alternative was that he would be punished with fines or other means. Try to keep up....jeez.

Want to back up and actually answer the question that was asked, or do you prefer to act like an pompous ass?

He answered it. The problem here is clearly that you have difficulties grasping others' statements.

go get an adult to explain things for you, lil bubba.

And while you're at it show us where any church or pastor was sued successfully for refusing to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past.

You can't; hence you present us with all your schoolboy antics and dishonest evasions, ducks, dodges, bobs, and weaves.

the bottom line answer is if you are a business open for public accomodation, you must abide by all appropriate statutes and ordinances to include non-discrimination laws.

And as worldwatcher stated; there is no rational basis to think that a church or pastor would be sued successfully for refusing to perform a religious ceremony. Absolutely no evidence, not one whit, none whatsoever, has been presented here by anyone showing that any church or pastor in US legal history has ever been successfully sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony in contravention to their religious beliefs.

You wanna rebut that in an adult manner by providing facts? Then show us one----- single------ case---- which proves me wrong.

We'll wait while you do some digging..........

 

[PJC]

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?

Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.

>>>>

Actually, as usual, it means you are ignorant. Under many public accomodation laws anyone that offers a good, product, or service to the public has to make it available to everyone. In other words, of you perform marriages, or rent your church facilities out for marriages, you are fucked if a same sex couple decides to score some quick cash.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/aug/07082104

Actually, as usual, it means you’re having difficulties with basic comprehension.

Selling stuff to the public isn’t a religious ceremony. You wanna open a business and make money? Then you have to abide by laws pertaining to such. That organization you’re referring to were a bunch of lying-ass weasels. First, in order to get state tax exemption, it promised to make the pavilion public. Opening it to the public required (and they knew this) them to provide equal access on a non-discriminatory basis.

So for money purposes, they were claiming it was open to the public.

For bigotry purposes, they backpedaled and changed their minds, claiming that the pavilion was not open to the public.

They were reminded in court by being showed a document where they themselves had promised it would be open to the public.

They were caught in a lie.

They were trying to have it both ways and it bit ‘em in the ass. Serves them right.

Good example, Windy. Wasn’t at all about religion. It was about money and bigotry on the part of that organization. Shows what lying, greed and bigotry will get you.

 

[PJC]

That's right, they are sued under state law. The loophole is removing your business from Public Accommodation. That is what is happening, slowly right now, but inexorably. I was sued under Public Accommodation laws and won, because it was never proved that my services were offered to the public. The photographer in my art group likewise removed his business from Public Accommodation. My mechanic removed his business from Public Accommodation long ago. He has chosen his customers on a case by case basis for 15 years.

The photographer case from New Mexico, advertised they they performed services for weddings and other special events.

The florists case from Washington, she advertised they she performed services for weddings and other special events.

The "baker" case (if I'm remembering it correctly) was actually a cupcake maker the advertised they provided catering services.

I'm not saying I agree with the law, just saying that Public Accommodation laws exists and that putting a sign up will not insulate you from following the law.

>>>>

Fuck the law.

Windbag: "You're wrong, the law says blah blah blah!"

Worldwatcher: "Sorry, you are incorrect; here is the proof; the law does not say blah blah blah."

Windbag: "Oh....um....er.....well......gulp....ahem...Fuck The Law!"

You're a sore loser, aincha, Windy?

 

[PJC]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Currently, a Catholic priest will refuse to marry you unless you are Catholic. Are they being sued?

Currently, each priest makes his own mind up about that.

Has any of them been sued?

 

[PJC]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

It’s likely never discussed because it’s idiocy.

The 14th Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions, not private entities such as religious institutions.

‘Conservative pastors’ would be free to exclude same-sex couples with impunity, as there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.

It’s troubling that so many on the right would stoop to such lies to advance their agenda of hate.

Are you trying to tell me laws that require businesses to accept customers without discrimination are unconstitutional? Do you have any case law to back that up, because everything I know says that is horse puckey.

What??? Of course he wasn’t trying to tell you that. Jeez. You’ve provided still more evidence which shows your gross ineptitude in grasping others’ comments.

You’re not all that bright, are you?

 

[PJC]

It would have to be well defined, so people know that if you get into buisiness "X" you have to accomodate all: Of course any level of government could not discriminate at all:

The following would have to follow all anti-discrimination laws:

1. Any company that runs any public entity for a state, federal or local government agency. So if that golf course is a public golf course, it can't discriminate, because the government can't. Same goes for concession stands given a permit on public beaches, airport/port stores on agency land, and highway concession stands.

2. Basic types of large stores: Supermarkets, Big Box Stores, Department Stores.

3. Resturants and hotels within a mile of a Interstate highway exit.

4. Private Hospitals, Clinics, etc. Pharmacies.


After that? Let em at it. Public pressure is enough at this point to prevent most places from discriminating, and those that dont care about that will find they only have a small niche market.

Incorrect.

The ‘size’ of the market is irrelevant, all market activity is interrelated, regardless how small. See: Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

Consequently, the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate markets concerning pubic accommodations. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Didn't you just say they couldn't do that?

No, he didn't. You clearly misunderstood. You've confused businesses with religious entities.

By the way, you are wrong about the extent of the commerce clause also.

Merely saying "you're wrong" is a worthless bare assertion unless you support your claim with some fact.

 

[PJC]

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

Nonsense.

Judging from your posts and the posts of others on the right, public accommodations laws are needed as much now as during the 60s; the ‘filth’ is far from ‘cleared out.’

Fuck off, sometimes there is no fucking room at the inn.

You've used a dimwitted and irrelevant non-sequitor.

Try again.