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

[Seawytch]

So you won't hire a gay person? Even though that gay person might be the best employee you could ever have?

Noom, you're responding to a full fledged racist who won't hire people because they're black let alone gay.

At least he's honest, and as long he doesnt have any impact on any governmental activities I dont have a problem with it.

So as long as breaking state and federal law doesn't impact "governmental activities" you don't care about ALL lawbreaking or just discrimination?

You support employment discrimination....what about housing or utilities? Should a private energy company be able to shut off black and gay heat or just gay heat? Should an apartment complex be able to keep out all the people they don't like?

 

[Seawytch]

Substitute "black" for "gay" and see how much agreement you get. I'm fine with it. I'm against coercion in business.

Substitute black for gay and you've broken state and federal law.

And how long until you dont need to make the substitution to break the law? Which is kind of the point here.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner folk! Is not about public accommodation laws, it's about that "the gheys" might be protected by them. (Psst, they already are in many states)

 

[The Rabbi]

Substitute black for gay and you've broken state and federal law.

And how long until you dont need to make the substitution to break the law? Which is kind of the point here.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner folk! Is not about public accommodation laws, it's about that "the gheys" might be protected by them. (Psst, they already are in many states)

Yup. That is the issue.
Now, I can look at someone and tell they're black. I can talk to someone and tell they're Catholic. I can look at a resume and tell if someone is female. But I have no idea whether someone is gay or not. And yet on the basis of what someone claims he does in the bedroom I can be sued for discrimination if I dont hire him.
Yeah. That's justice all right.

 

[martybegan]

Noom, you're responding to a full fledged racist who won't hire people because they're black let alone gay.

At least he's honest, and as long he doesnt have any impact on any governmental activities I dont have a problem with it.

So as long as breaking state and federal law doesn't impact "governmental activities" you don't care about ALL lawbreaking or just discrimination?

You support employment discrimination....what about housing or utilities? Should a private energy company be able to shut off black and gay heat or just gay heat? Should an apartment complex be able to keep out all the people they don't like?

Private utlities work under government mandates/juristiction in thier areas of operation, and thus would have to follow government's requirement to be neutral in such cases.

Housing is a trickier issue, but was more of a concern when "seperate but equal" was a government mandate. Honestly I dont know why you would want to live in a complex that doesnt want you there. What couldn't occur would be a local village/town saying "person's X" are not welcome, as again that would be a governmental action, and thus would have to be neutral.

If its public housing, then the government restriction applies as well.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

No. They should be able to refuse service to whom ever they want for what ever reason.

So if you owned a coffee shop in say North Carolina and you did not want to serve African Americans because you happen to be a bigot, it's well within your rights to refuse service?

Have we learned that the more equally we treat one another the better society functions? Or are we willing to revert to a time when there really were second class American citizens all to placate fear and ignorance and bigotry?

 

[Seawytch]

At least he's honest, and as long he doesnt have any impact on any governmental activities I dont have a problem with it.

So as long as breaking state and federal law doesn't impact "governmental activities" you don't care about ALL lawbreaking or just discrimination?

You support employment discrimination....what about housing or utilities? Should a private energy company be able to shut off black and gay heat or just gay heat? Should an apartment complex be able to keep out all the people they don't like?

Private utlities work under government mandates/juristiction in thier areas of operation, and thus would have to follow government's requirement to be neutral in such cases.

Housing is a trickier issue, but was more of a concern when "seperate but equal" was a government mandate. Honestly I dont know why you would want to live in a complex that doesnt want you there. What couldn't occur would be a local village/town saying "person's X" are not welcome, as again that would be a governmental action, and thus would have to be neutral.

If its public housing, then the government restriction applies as well.

So does public accommodation. These laws have been challenged and found constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

So as long as breaking state and federal law doesn't impact "governmental activities" you don't care about ALL lawbreaking or just discrimination?

You support employment discrimination....what about housing or utilities? Should a private energy company be able to shut off black and gay heat or just gay heat? Should an apartment complex be able to keep out all the people they don't like?

Private utlities work under government mandates/juristiction in thier areas of operation, and thus would have to follow government's requirement to be neutral in such cases.

Housing is a trickier issue, but was more of a concern when "seperate but equal" was a government mandate. Honestly I dont know why you would want to live in a complex that doesnt want you there. What couldn't occur would be a local village/town saying "person's X" are not welcome, as again that would be a governmental action, and thus would have to be neutral.

If its public housing, then the government restriction applies as well.

So does public accommodation. These laws have been challenged and found constitutional.

The consitution is neutral on it, so there is nothing unconsitutional about State legislatures regulating it, I find the concept of the laws wrong.

Consitutional does not alway equal "being right"

I just do see the need to force some baker to work at an event they dont want to work at. Go somewhere else for the damn cake at let people live as they want to live. That was your whole argument for gay marriage, wasn't it?

 

[Katzndogz]

They will lose out on a lot of money. They are either in business or they're not. If they don't want to provide any service to gays, the hell with them. Plenty of other people will.

That is certain.

There was a local gay pride event last weekend, hundreds of vendors were there advertising for homosexual clients. It's not like gays can't obtain a particular service if one person objects.

 

[Nosmo King]

They will lose out on a lot of money. They are either in business or they're not. If they don't want to provide any service to gays, the hell with them. Plenty of other people will.

That is certain.

There was a local gay pride event last weekend, hundreds of vendors were there advertising for homosexual clients. It's not like gays can't obtain a particular service if one person objects.

So long as there is a water fountain marked "Gays Only"? Separate but equal?

 

[Uncensored2008]

They will lose out on a lot of money. They are either in business or they're not. If they don't want to provide any service to gays, the hell with them. Plenty of other people will.

Then you have no need to use force of arms by the federal government to force them to follow you beliefs, do you Comrade?


Republicans hate Obama because they love America - it's one or the other.

 

[martybegan]

They will lose out on a lot of money. They are either in business or they're not. If they don't want to provide any service to gays, the hell with them. Plenty of other people will.

That is certain.

There was a local gay pride event last weekend, hundreds of vendors were there advertising for homosexual clients. It's not like gays can't obtain a particular service if one person objects.

So long as there is a water fountain marked "Gays Only"? Separate but equal?

The water fountains in the 60's in question were usually in public buildings, therefore they were unconsitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

They will lose out on a lot of money. They are either in business or they're not. If they don't want to provide any service to gays, the hell with them. Plenty of other people will.

That is certain.

There was a local gay pride event last weekend, hundreds of vendors were there advertising for homosexual clients. It's not like gays can't obtain a particular service if one person objects.

So long as there is a water fountain marked "Gays Only"? Separate but equal?

Is it a public water fountain in the park?

If a vendor wants to advertise specifically to homosexuals how should they be prevented from doing that?

You do not understand the difference between a service advertised to the general public and a personal service. Should a gay person be able to walk into a bakery and buy cupcakes from the display case? Absolutely and anyone who refuses should be suitably punished. Should a gay person be able to compel the baker to use his talent to provide a wedding cake when there is a religious objection to the wedding? Absolutely not.

Bakers that object really do have a way to refuse. So far, no one can compel anyone else to participate in a same sex wedding if they object. The baker should just bake the cake, give it to the buyer and tell them that constructing the cake is their problem because the baker is not going to a same sex wedding. Now the cake becomes nothing more than a cupcake.

 

[Nosmo King]

Don't tell me how Conservatism is a political ideology that promotes freedom and liberty after all these screeds form Conservatives who would happily reinstitute Jim Crow for Gays!

Is it any wonder why your politics are viewed by the VAST MAJORITY of Americans as either cruel or greedy or self centered or hateful? Conservatives are now and always have been on the wrong side of history. None of their alleged 'ideals' have been sustained due to their inherent quality of division and stupidity.

Conservatives opposed women's rights, civil rights, labor reform, collective bargaining, environmental remediation and now, Gay rights. What a sterling record!

 

[Katzndogz]

If you champion freedom so much, who gets freedom? Who is more deserving of freedom than someone else. One person's act of freedom is an act of slavery to someone else.

Do you think that people who do not want to attend a same sex marriage ceremony should be compelled to do so?

 

[Nosmo King]

If you champion freedom so much, who gets freedom? Who is more deserving of freedom than someone else. One person's act of freedom is an act of slavery to someone else.

Do you think that people who do not want to attend a same sex marriage ceremony should be compelled to do so?

I didn't want to go to my brother's second wedding because I knew that his bride and future ex-wife was an evil person. I should not be compelled by force of law to attend. But if I owned a bakery and knew this woman and knew she was marrying someone other than my brother, I would definitely provide a cake. Not because I want the business (which every responsible business owner wants first) but because my objections have NOTHING to do with the business she wants to conduct with me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you champion freedom so much, who gets freedom? Who is more deserving of freedom than someone else. One person's act of freedom is an act of slavery to someone else.

Do you think that people who do not want to attend a same sex marriage ceremony should be compelled to do so?

If it more important to you to be able to discriminate against gays than it is for you to run your business in compliance with the law,

then you need to either change your attitude, get out of the business, or be willing to face the consequences of running afoul of the law.

If every person is allowed to live by their own set of rules, then you have chaos.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you champion freedom so much, who gets freedom? Who is more deserving of freedom than someone else. One person's act of freedom is an act of slavery to someone else.

Do you think that people who do not want to attend a same sex marriage ceremony should be compelled to do so?

I didn't want to go to my brother's second wedding because I knew that his bride and future ex-wife was an evil person. I should not be compelled by force of law to attend. But if I owned a bakery and knew this woman and knew she was marrying someone other than my brother, I would definitely provide a cake. Not because I want the business (which every responsible business owner wants first) but because my objections have NOTHING to do with the business she wants to conduct with me.

And when a baker is compelled to violate their religious belief by attending a same sex wedding it has everything to do with the business being conducted.

You do know that wedding cakes are constructed on site. Those tiers aren't put into a big box and carried around.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you champion freedom so much, who gets freedom? Who is more deserving of freedom than someone else. One person's act of freedom is an act of slavery to someone else.

Do you think that people who do not want to attend a same sex marriage ceremony should be compelled to do so?

The City of Chicago wanted the 'freedom' to decide who could or could not own a handgun. The Supreme Court denied that city that freedom.

Did you object to that?

You are inventing your own set of circumstantial, variable, adjustable 'principles' to match your prejudices. That is not how principles work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you champion freedom so much, who gets freedom? Who is more deserving of freedom than someone else. One person's act of freedom is an act of slavery to someone else.

Do you think that people who do not want to attend a same sex marriage ceremony should be compelled to do so?

I didn't want to go to my brother's second wedding because I knew that his bride and future ex-wife was an evil person. I should not be compelled by force of law to attend. But if I owned a bakery and knew this woman and knew she was marrying someone other than my brother, I would definitely provide a cake. Not because I want the business (which every responsible business owner wants first) but because my objections have NOTHING to do with the business she wants to conduct with me.

And when a baker is compelled to violate their religious belief by attending a same sex wedding it has everything to do with the business being conducted.

You do know that wedding cakes are constructed on site. Those tiers aren't put into a big box and carried around.

People who by their religion don't believe in war, or killing, don't generally join the army and then demand the army adjust to their religious beliefs.

If your religion demands that you not do business with gay people, then you are a fool to start a business that may by law demand that you do business with gay people.

 

[The Rabbi]

They will lose out on a lot of money. They are either in business or they're not. If they don't want to provide any service to gays, the hell with them. Plenty of other people will.

That is certain.

There was a local gay pride event last weekend, hundreds of vendors were there advertising for homosexual clients. It's not like gays can't obtain a particular service if one person objects.

So long as there is a water fountain marked "Gays Only"? Separate but equal?

The only think you know about water fountains is they function a lot like toilets.

They aren't even close to the same thing. No one is being denied anything, except merchants the right to conduct their own business as they want.