Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll just leave this here. Let the casualties fall where they may:
Simple cause and effect. Now, a neo Nazi can sue a Jewish baker for not making him a Nazi themed cake. A Klansman can sue a black seamstress for not making him his white robe and hat. A Christian can sue a Muslim because he refused to serve him pork chops, and vice versa. The possibilities are endless, LL.
Just remember, equality works both ways, not just for gay people.
You seem to be catching on to how this all works. You cant discriminate against people because you dislike them. Its illegal.
Well then, I suppose you can tell that to the IRS then.
And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.
Even when your religious beliefs are against race mixing?
Sorry boy, we don't serve colored here
Sorry boy, your argument is a red herring. Moving on.
Obama grew as a personal person right after winning the election? Gotta love liblogic. I had a guy come into my shop wearing a Bush in crosshairs teeshirt back in the liberal glory days. If I refused service to him, would that be my right?You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.
I.
It think you miss the point that the only free choice you have is to live by the rules of society/government or be penalized. Since the OP is about discriminating against a couple because of what your religion dictates then "free choice" would cover the ability to discriminate.
II. In regard to your last paragraph....the point of progress is to move forward even when at times it may seem you need to stand still and figure it all out perfectly before implementation. I can tell you that it rarely works that way. People get brain lock and freeze trying to come to a 100% consensus. Nothing would ever get done. You take the best course of action, evaluate the results, tweak the solution and continue to do this in a never ending cycle. This is a process not the completed package.
Even when your religious beliefs are against race mixing?
Sorry boy, we don't serve colored here
Sorry boy, your argument is a red herring. Moving on.
It s the same issue. Using religion to cover for your hatred of blacks or hatred of gays. Didnt work in 1965, doesn't work in 2014
I was invited to a gay wedding a little while ago and politely said "FUCK NO". I'm fairly sure I would have thrown up when they kissed. So you see, gays aren't winning. Unless you want to pass a law that makes people come to your weddings with a smile. LOL
I'll just leave this here. Let the casualties fall where they may:
You just became the first casualty of your own post. Any intelligent person knows that you can grow as a person and subsequently change your mind. Also intelligent people know the quote is out of context because he is talking about his own personal beliefs and not saying that gay people should not get married. You need more practice in fooling people.
Not my examples.
My examples:
But race is...as is color. The KKK is a race-based advocacy group. The Black owned caterer therefore cannot refuse to provide his service to the KKK meeting because he has a problem with white race advocacy groups. Same goes for the Black seamstress refusing to hem the white robe.
Religion is too. Therefore, the Christian can sick the government on the Jewish baker for refusing to make a Jesus-on-the-cross cake. The Muslim baker cannot refuse on religious grounds to bake the cake with a picture of Mohammed on it.
Age is also. So, if the Senior Center prefers not to offer their rec room to teenagers, they're out of luck. If a 60 year old man wants to join the Boys Scouts, what's to stop him now?
KKK argument was raised and dismissed by the court. If the black seamstress refused service because they are white - the complaint would be valid.
Or if he refused because they are White race advocacy group. I say that's wrong.
Agreed. Political groups are not protected...yet. Further demonstrating my point that to pick and choose which group gets protection and which does not is a slippery slope.
Does matter how many White customer she has. If she dares utter the truth, that she doesn't want to work a garment worn by a white supremacist group, she's out of luck. I say that's a shame.
Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?
No.
The problem is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans by many on the social right.
That's not the point. It shouldn't matter if the guy who walks in my door is gay, black, Muslim, a daywalking ginger, or is wearing a Winger t-shirt. As a business owner I should have the same right to not do business with someone as that guy's right to go to my competitor.
Does the flip side hold true, that government can tell our hypothetical buyer who he must do business with? Am I going to be funneled to gay owned businesses or black owned businesses or Muslim owned businesses just because some bureaucrat or society demands it? It's bad enough that we have to ask permission via licencing just to open a business, but where does that government intervention in the marketplace in the name of fairness end?
Nonsense? You just blew your wad. If it was a Constitutional issue, there would be no need for an "Accommodation law". There is no federal law that states you must serve anyone if you serve anybody. I can say "I don't do business with women". You can sue but you'd loose, unless there was a local law businesses were forced to operate under.Nonsense.
Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined appropriate and Constitutional by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – from employees’ wages to working conditions to environmental protection to consumer safety – and public accommodations laws are no different and just as appropriate and Constitutional.
Clearly the social right’s opposition to public accommodations laws that afford protections to gay customers is predicated solely on their animus toward gay Americans, not some inane, errant perception of an “erosion of freedom.”
Careful what you wish for...
If this Christian photographer must work a gay wedding, so must a Black-owned caterer provide their services to a KKK meeting.
And Public Accommodation laws are in my mind unconstitutional. When they force people to act against their beliefs while doing business with the public, they have lost control of their business and of their basic religious freedoms. The ability to run a business should not come at the expense of your religious beliefs.
Except they aren't unconstitutional and no one really cares about your personal lack of understanding of constitution and caselaw.
Excuse me? Jillian? I dare you to get into a case law debate with me. I've studied the law a lot longer than you have, granted. Your lack of an argument tells me all I need to know. Nobody cares that your argument is inferior, jillian. Your lack of understanding on free expression and religious freedom is limited only to that which the liberal elite in Washington tell you.
Sorry boy, your argument is a red herring. Moving on.
It s the same issue. Using religion to cover for your hatred of blacks or hatred of gays. Didnt work in 1965, doesn't work in 2014
Dear Rightwinger:
Sorry but race and orientation are NOT the same.
These issues have some similarities externally, but internally not the same level.
A. Enough research has been shown to back the arguments
that orientation is NOT defined, limited, or determined by genetics alone.
Not the same with RACE which is determined by genetics.
B. People who were homosexual have been healed if this
was caused by abuse, and they were later healed of the abuse.
Not all, but some cases this happens where they change
back to their original orientation and no longer are attracted homosexually.
I have never heard of anyone who "naturally changed race"
after they were healed of past abuses.
Abuse does not cause someone's race,
but it has caused people to exhibit sexual behavior patterns,
either heterosexual or homosexual, that "changed after they were healed of abuse."
This is not limited to just gay but also can affect cases of
straight sexually abusive behavior caused by abuse.
I have NEVER heard of someone
being "healed of their race" or changing their race "naturally."
Not all cases of homosexuality are caused by abuse.
But ALL people I know are of their race by birth, they were born that way
and it is not caused by environmental or social factors after the fact.
It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.
In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.
It amazes normal people that rightwingnuts think they can claim a religious exemption to equal protection
It s the same issue. Using religion to cover for your hatred of blacks or hatred of gays. Didnt work in 1965, doesn't work in 2014
Dear Rightwinger:
Sorry but race and orientation are NOT the same.
These issues have some similarities externally, but internally not the same level.
A. Enough research has been shown to back the arguments
that orientation is NOT defined, limited, or determined by genetics alone.
Not the same with RACE which is determined by genetics.
B. People who were homosexual have been healed if this
was caused by abuse, and they were later healed of the abuse.
Not all, but some cases this happens where they change
back to their original orientation and no longer are attracted homosexually.
I have never heard of anyone who "naturally changed race"
after they were healed of past abuses.
Abuse does not cause someone's race,
but it has caused people to exhibit sexual behavior patterns,
either heterosexual or homosexual, that "changed after they were healed of abuse."
This is not limited to just gay but also can affect cases of
straight sexually abusive behavior caused by abuse.
I have NEVER heard of someone
being "healed of their race" or changing their race "naturally."
Not all cases of homosexuality are caused by abuse.
But ALL people I know are of their race by birth, they were born that way
and it is not caused by environmental or social factors after the fact.
Dear Emily
You post like it is still 1950, please stop
In this case the business had zero respect for the public. They should have put up signs announcing they hate gay people. If they want to run a straight club they are more than welcome. However, since this is a business that caters to the public and not just those in their church group they have to accommodate everyone.
I agree with you in saying that there is no way someone is getting my money if they hate/dislike me. On the other hand it is funny they lost and will have to either remove their religious beliefs from their business and treat everyone equally. (Weird that religious beliefs and equality are at odds in that sentence.)
I know how many want to blame the gay couple.....is there evidence that they KNEW prior to going to this business that they were going to refuse to serve them?
Face it. You really, really don't know 99% of people out there you deal with on a daily basis are gay or not. Not all gays fit your biased stereotype of being swishing sissies.
Get over it.
It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.
In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
Fucking pricks.
All they've done is set gay rights back 20 years, and likely made a whole lot of people hate anything to do with gay rights.
Your post, in particular the last two words, about says it all.
The US Supreme court could now, to many people, look like a wimp/scaredy-cat/chicken.
