Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[KevinWestern]

There is a difference between providing a service and providing a personal service. Personal services should never be required by anyone. Selling cakes that are decorated with flowers and colored icing is a service. Selling a wedding cake made to personal specifications and instructions is a personal service.

Laws mandating providing personal services is nothing more than slavery and should be abolished.

Sure, but at the end of the day, Katz, a photographer can simply just say no to any person he/she wants and be fully protected under the law. At the end of the day a wedding planner can say "no thanks" to an infinite number of black couples and would not have to worry about facing prison time.

Is it worth fighting for that photographer's right to say no AND be able to tell the person it's because he/she is black?

What exactly does this accomplish?


.

Having a published or stated policy that would state something like "We do not supply services for gay weddings" or "We do not supply services to hindu ceremonies" or "We do not photograph what we consider to be lascivious activities" or whatever else, SAVES TIME.. you make a slot for an appointment to go meet a potential client, to then find out the activity is against what you believe or are comfortable with... you waste time, effort, money, etc.. and it is just as worth it to be able to say you are not doing it because someone is gay, or Eskimo, or whatever other reason..

Sure, and what also saves time is providing all respectful, paying customers business regardless of race/sexual orientation.

The time wasting is a personal choice on the part of the vendor.

 

[DiamondDave]

Sure, but at the end of the day, Katz, a photographer can simply just say no to any person he/she wants and be fully protected under the law. At the end of the day a wedding planner can say "no thanks" to an infinite number of black couples and would not have to worry about facing prison time.

Is it worth fighting for that photographer's right to say no AND be able to tell the person it's because he/she is black?

What exactly does this accomplish?


.

Having a published or stated policy that would state something like "We do not supply services for gay weddings" or "We do not supply services to hindu ceremonies" or "We do not photograph what we consider to be lascivious activities" or whatever else, SAVES TIME.. you make a slot for an appointment to go meet a potential client, to then find out the activity is against what you believe or are comfortable with... you waste time, effort, money, etc.. and it is just as worth it to be able to say you are not doing it because someone is gay, or Eskimo, or whatever other reason..

Sure, and what also saves time is providing all respectful, paying customers business regardless of race/sexual orientation.

The time wasting is a personal choice on the part of the vendor.

And all this action favors or protects one choice over another.. hence where I have a problem with it all

Like I said.. I think it is stupid fir a business to exclude, but I will not hinder someone else's freedom to choose for themselves what they will do, who they will work for, what services they will provide etc

I do not have to agree what they do with their freedom to want to protect their freedom

 

[gallantwarrior]

All along, the homosexual lobby has been comparing the plight of the American homosexuals to that of the American Civil Right Movement. They believe it is completely synonomous, and thus individuals and businesses making the decision to simply not provide support or services to a gay wedding is paramount to segregation.

Keep in mind that the homosexual population is 1-4% of the population. We are redefining an institution whose soul purpose is to protect children and give legal obligation to men and women who have children--all on the demands of 1-4% of the population. It is not enough to give civil unions, allowing homosexual couples the same benefits as a marriage, they demand we redefine the entire definition of the word.
The left has been waging a war, literally, against the institution of marriage since the 60's. Little by litte, court decision after court decision, inch by inch--chipping away at the foundations of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock had legal consequences once upon a time. A man had no right to a child outside of marriage, and a woman had no right to that man's finances. That court decision opened the flood gates, leading to adoption numbers to drop drastically from the 60's to present day.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. These people do not want equal treatment under the law, they want to redesign and mold their concept of a brave new world. The do not care whose rights, ideologies, or religious beliefs are trampled in the process, as long as they have their lifestyle choice validated and accepted, forcibly if necessary. The make their demands while totally disregarding the fact that they are doing exactly the same thing to others they claim has been done to them.

 

[gallantwarrior]

In parts of San Francisco it was perfectly normal for a grown man to walk around nude and wag his dick in the face of a five year old. It is normal for someone to pull down their pants, squat and take a dump on the sidewalk.

Really - That would be 'normal' in some parts of San Francisco (a naked grown man waving his member in front of a child) before taking a dump on the sidewalk?

I'd like to google this and verify; can you send me the location(s) on a map perhaps with some evidence?

It's not difficult to find photos of these freaks on line...and you can't tell me that there aren't children around while guys like this are trotting their gear all over SF.

 

[martybegan]

In parts of San Francisco it was perfectly normal for a grown man to walk around nude and wag his dick in the face of a five year old. It is normal for someone to pull down their pants, squat and take a dump on the sidewalk.

Really - That would be 'normal' in some parts of San Francisco (a naked grown man waving his member in front of a child) before taking a dump on the sidewalk?

I'd like to google this and verify; can you send me the location(s) on a map perhaps with some evidence?

It's not difficult to find photos of these freaks on line...and you can't tell me that there aren't children around while guys like this are trotting their gear all over SF.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I am saying that the 'gay rights' crowd is now looking for protected status... forcing others to do services they want... and that is against the freedoms afforded to persons and businesses.. refusal to do business with is not the same as following pasteurization laws, cleanliness laws, etc

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

Whether a specific reason is cited for denial of services is irrelevant to the social campaigners hell-bent on forcing everyone to accept their agenda. The refusal appears to be sufficient cause to hire attorneys and file a 'discrimination' suit.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Surely there must be some gay bakers in gay communities. Hell, even the Pillsbury Doughboy likes to get poked now and then!

...and I suspect there are some gay "seamstresses" in the gay Meccas.

..and there must be some gay florists.

Start yourself a bakery that caters to gays. You'll make millions!

Addressing the OP, most businesses can reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE!...for ANY REASON they choose.

Somebody has recognized the gold mine and is digging right now. When I opened this thread, the advert at the top urged me to celebrate LGBT pride in Maui.

Are you going? Sounds awesome!

Nope, farmers don't travel much. Besides, I have no interest in HI. Most Alaskans prefer HI in the winter months.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hey, it's just my opinion. I like the fact that there are laws preventing public businesses (as in a public golf course) from overtly refusing a customer a coffee because he/she is black, gay, or a woman. Note that private clubs CAN still overtly refuse membership to whomever they want.

I think this fosters good things, ultimately, and helps to break down some of the more visible and tangible segregation barriers that exist in our society.

.

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

Forcing someone to conceal their sexual perversion is evil and bad, but forcing someone to conceal their bigotry is good? Why should one group be permitted to be "in your face" with their choices while others are required (and suffer punishment under the law) if they don't keep their opinions to themselves?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hello everyone!

I am interested to hear personal stories of the time(s) you were denied entry to an establishment or denied services by a business based on who you are.

Anyone?

I've been turned down for a couple of jobs.

Whoever was handling the hiring, did they send you a note that you didn't get the job because because you weren't black/gay/etc?

Now I'm not just being a dick, I realize white folks are turned down from time to time because they are not black, etc.

However, I think the world aint perfect but at the end of the day (when you look at America overall) you're going to have a much easier time finding a job as a white male than any other group out there. Everyone faces discrimination at times, however white males face it the least on a macro perspective in the US.

Perhaps you hold a different opinion, but that's just mine..

They told me pretty much right off the bat why they would not hire me. One of them even told me that the job I applied for was "reserved" for another "class" of employee.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

Forcing someone to conceal their sexual perversion is evil and bad, but forcing someone to conceal their bigotry is good? Why should one group be permitted to be "in your face" with their choices while others are required (and suffer punishment under the law) if they don't keep their opinions to themselves?

Repression. It's the name of the game with liberals.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think you should be allowed to serve whom you wish. Plain and simple.

Then you should put a sign on the window of your shop that states you won't serve black people, or gay people, and let the public make their choice - and they have the right to launch a boycott of your business, and attack your beliefs, if they so choose.

So if you are a prepared for your small business to go downhill, you will put that sign in your window.

Or you might just attract the support of people who feel the same way you do. I seem to recall Chi-fil-A making record profits for a while after the gays declared their intention to boycott and destroy that franchise.

Mike Huckabee made sure the homosexual people didn't get their way. What he did was brilliant.

 

[Spoonman]

I've been turned down for a couple of jobs.

Whoever was handling the hiring, did they send you a note that you didn't get the job because because you weren't black/gay/etc?

Now I'm not just being a dick, I realize white folks are turned down from time to time because they are not black, etc.

However, I think the world aint perfect but at the end of the day (when you look at America overall) you're going to have a much easier time finding a job as a white male than any other group out there. Everyone faces discrimination at times, however white males face it the least on a macro perspective in the US.

Perhaps you hold a different opinion, but that's just mine..

They told me pretty much right off the bat why they would not hire me. One of them even told me that the job I applied for was "reserved" for another "class" of employee.

i used to work for a very large fortune 100 company. a lot of the job requisitions would come with compliance chart indicating where we stood on meeting affirmative action goals. A subtle hint on what you needed to hire.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, actually you don't have that right.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. [...]

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Right to Refuse Service

Yeah I do, because I own that business, and under the 4th Amendment, I am allowed to be secure in my own property and effects. I can do with my property what I choose. So actually that doesn't tell all of the story.

Actual court cases prove you wrong.

Funny how you never posted them.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is no genetic link to gay, just as there is no genetic link to having something be 'transexual'.. that is fact... as much as they have tried to prove or suggest otherwise

Believing that being gay is NOT a choice is my personal opinion – I realize that. However will note that the human species still understands very, very little about genetics overall. We’ve only scratched the surface.

There is more than choice.. there is learned behavior, there is environmental influence, and there are also abnormalities and disorders (normally which we seek to treat, like my daughter with bi-polar disorder).. now, since gay 'treatment' is frowned upon, I guess we have to say it is not a disorder or just a mere chemical imbalance.. so I guess we have to go with environmental or learned behavior, or choice... but regardless, it is a BEHAVIOR or ACTION, not something genetic like race.. and we discriminate against choices, behaviors, and actions continually.. and rightfully so.. and people have differing standards of that discrimination because of their beliefs, their own environment, their own learned behavior etc...

Again, I believe genetic predispositions go beyond just physical, visible characteristics (ie skin color or deformity). But at this point in history (since we don’t fully understand genetics to any degree), we’re going to have to go with what most folks “believe” for the time being, and I’m assuming the trend is towards believing that “being gay” is NOT a choice. I’m not saying this is necessarily correct or incorrect; it’s instead just how it is…

Also.. in a grocery store, you may have the right to be against the choices or actions of someone outside the store, but you don't ask whether someone is buying a cantaloupe for a gay wedding... but when a behavior or action is announced and the reason behind a contracted service, it is a completely different situation.. and conflicting beliefs on those actions can happen.. and one person's belief does not trump the other, or it SHOULD NOT... but the agenda at hand here is one of protected status because of a behavior or action... THAT is WRONG

I think I mentioned this before, but if a Photographer doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding they don’t have to – correct?

Too, I have no sympathy for someone who won’t take money for a cantaloupe because it comes out that a certain (respectful, paying) customer is gay. I just don’t feel it necessary to find the time fighting for his right to refuse the sale by helping to overturn the law. If you’d like to, be my guest (and I won’t think anything different of you). I just don’t think you’ll have much luck.

I don't recall your personal stand on religion, but many people have expressed similar opinions about "belief" of homosexuals have that they are "born that way". Yet, the same people who advocate acceptance of this gay "belief" in the provenance of their condition being somehow genetically driven are the very same people who ridicule other's "belief" in some religious tenets. Why do the "beliefs" of one group (gays) require we accept on faith their contention as to their condition, while the "beliefs" of other groups (say, Christians) are reprehensible and require the force of government to eradicate such "beliefs"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no genetic link to gay, just as there is no genetic link to having something be 'transexual'.. that is fact... as much as they have tried to prove or suggest otherwise

Believing that being gay is NOT a choice is my personal opinion – I realize that. However will note that the human species still understands very, very little about genetics overall. We’ve only scratched the surface.



Again, I believe genetic predispositions go beyond just physical, visible characteristics (ie skin color or deformity). But at this point in history (since we don’t fully understand genetics to any degree), we’re going to have to go with what most folks “believe” for the time being, and I’m assuming the trend is towards believing that “being gay” is NOT a choice. I’m not saying this is necessarily correct or incorrect; it’s instead just how it is…

Also.. in a grocery store, you may have the right to be against the choices or actions of someone outside the store, but you don't ask whether someone is buying a cantaloupe for a gay wedding... but when a behavior or action is announced and the reason behind a contracted service, it is a completely different situation.. and conflicting beliefs on those actions can happen.. and one person's belief does not trump the other, or it SHOULD NOT... but the agenda at hand here is one of protected status because of a behavior or action... THAT is WRONG

I think I mentioned this before, but if a Photographer doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding they don’t have to – correct?

Too, I have no sympathy for someone who won’t take money for a cantaloupe because it comes out that a certain (respectful, paying) customer is gay. I just don’t feel it necessary to find the time fighting for his right to refuse the sale by helping to overturn the law. If you’d like to, be my guest (and I won’t think anything different of you). I just don’t think you’ll have much luck.

I don't recall your personal stand on religion, but many people have expressed similar opinions about "belief" of homosexuals have that they are "born that way". Yet, the same people who advocate acceptance of this gay "belief" in the provenance of their condition being somehow genetically driven are the very same people who ridicule other's "belief" in some religious tenets. Why do the "beliefs" of one group (gays) require we accept on faith their contention as to their condition, while the "beliefs" of other groups (say, Christians) are reprehensible and require the force of government to eradicate such "beliefs"?

Bias. Politically induced bias. Some people derive their opinions based off of perceived consensus on an issue. In this case, it was a message given by those on the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I hold the opinion that being gay is not a choice, as it's just the way some people are born. There's no possible way I could 'choose' to be physically attracted to another man in a sexual fashion; it just doesn't work for me as I am a straight male.

You can kick a gay man out of your grocery store if he's wearing a lewd outfit, or making out with his boyfriend, etc, I'm fine with that. They chose to behave that way and now should face the consequences.

But kick him out simply because he's gay (and that's it), I have no sort of qualm with a law prohibiting that sort of thing with regards to a public business.

.

Who cares?

I hold to the opinion that alcoholism is not a choice, that some people are born alcoholics.

Still, this doesn't mean that I demand drunk driving be legal.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

Forcing someone to conceal their sexual perversion is evil and bad, but forcing someone to conceal their bigotry is good? Why should one group be permitted to be "in your face" with their choices while others are required (and suffer punishment under the law) if they don't keep their opinions to themselves?

Questions:
1.) Ever thought about children? What has a greater negative impact on a child observer; witnessing a cashier call a black a n**ger to their face in a store, or seeing nothing when the cashier thinks n**ger in their head?

2.) Are you referring to a gay person explicitly and inappropriately telling someone (in public) about how they have sex, and where? I would be against that too. Not sure what you mean by "in your face" perversion...

 

[Uncensored2008]

i really don't understand why this is an issue that should even be brought up in public schools.

Because without indoctrination, people are naturally repulsed by homosexuality. Right or wrong, this is a fact. With the state managed culture, children will be conditioned to approve of and celebrate homosexuality. It's part of the agenda.

 

[KevinWestern]

I hold the opinion that being gay is not a choice, as it's just the way some people are born. There's no possible way I could 'choose' to be physically attracted to another man in a sexual fashion; it just doesn't work for me as I am a straight male.

You can kick a gay man out of your grocery store if he's wearing a lewd outfit, or making out with his boyfriend, etc, I'm fine with that. They chose to behave that way and now should face the consequences.

But kick him out simply because he's gay (and that's it), I have no sort of qualm with a law prohibiting that sort of thing with regards to a public business.

.

Who cares?

I hold to the opinion that alcoholism is not a choice, that some people are born alcoholics.

Still, this doesn't mean that I demand drunk driving be legal.

Ok, two responses to this one.

First is that our opinions (alone) don't matter as much as the collective opinion. And (correct me if I'm wrong), the current trend seems to be favoring my way.

Secondly, your example is faulty in the sense that drunk driving hurts people in a tangible way while your two gay neighbors marrying does not.


.

 

[koshergrl]

i really don't understand why this is an issue that should even be brought up in public schools.

Because without indoctrination, people are naturally repulsed by homosexuality. Right or wrong, this is a fact. With the state managed culture, children will be conditioned to approve of and celebrate homosexuality. It's part of the agenda.

It's not so much about celebrating homosexuality as finding a surefire way to get kids removed from their parents.

Make morality a crime, and suddenly everyone's a criminal. And the state gets to raise the kids in nice compounds.