Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[danielpalos]

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

 

[martybegan]

Can't answer the question. Figures.

Where is the drug war in our Constitution, right winger? See how easy and simple it is to play that game.

it's not there, and actually should be given to the States to regulate like alcohol for pot.

There is federal law covering drug laws, and there is no right to drugs in the constittuion.

States have laws regarding public accommodations.

But there is a right to free expression of religion, and that is where PA laws don't win out over something as insignificant as a wedding cake.

Making a cake is "free expression of religion"? Why not not following health laws or safety laws too if someone wants to make up more religious "expressions"?

That will be the argument in front of the SC next term.

Actually religion can override fire code, I got married in a hindu temple, and part of the ceremony is a fire of open flame, something not allowed in the NYC fire code, but an exemption is given for religious reasons.

Health codes can also be modified. Health departments have to allow for kosher or halal slaughter, even if they have codes that require different procedures.

 

[martybegan]

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

 

[martybegan]

you don't give up your right to free expression to be in a business. Again, why do they have to be not for profit? They want to make a profit, they are part of a non essential industry, one that has many other participants, and their product is not time sensitive.

Unless the government can come up with a compelling reason to make them sell the cake, they should be able to run their business how they see fit.

Profit seeking is a requirement on a for-profit basis. The same is not true of not-for-profit ventures.

It is a simple distinction, if capitalists want to avoid this type of litigation.

Neither has anything to do with exercise of one's First Amendment Rights.

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

But government does get to decide religion exemptions from government rules/laws.

Only where there is a compelling interest, and then only using the least intrusive means possible to rectify the situation.

There is no compelling government interest in a butt hurt fight between a gay couple and a baker, and even if there was, a $149k fine is not the least intrusive means possible to rectify the situation.

 

[danielpalos]

Being immoral on a for-profit basis, is not a right.

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

 

[martybegan]

Government doesn't get to decide on morality.

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

It has to do with Standards, not morals.

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

 

[martybegan]

Standards don't outweigh Rights, and free exercise is one of them.

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

 

[bodecea]

You just have lousy reading comprehension. Why not read some anecdotes on the web?

Punishment Without Crime

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Those who have business licenses who don't follow business law intentionally should have their license pulled. Simple. And if one doesn't like a certain business law....WORK to get it repealed. WORKING doesn't include just whining online.

And our usual government thug apologist comes to the thread arguing process instead of purpose.

You love discrimination when it's against people you don't like.

Yes, I know it's so much easier for you to call me a "government thug apologist" rather than actually WORK to repeal laws you don't like. So much easier than actually doing anything.

 

[bodecea]

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

Says someone who thinks it's constructive to whine online but not to actually WORK to get "unjust" laws repealed.

 

[martybegan]

Again, I am fully aware of the abuse of asset forfeiture by various law enforcement agencies. I am also aware of the abuse done by human rights councils that forget freedom of religion is also a human right. Trying to say one is worse than the other is not helping anything.

A fine usually means you were found guilty of something.

Yes, guilty of not baking a cake. Again, you don't have to play "which is worse" here.

Those who have business licenses who don't follow business law intentionally should have their license pulled. Simple. And if one doesn't like a certain business law....WORK to get it repealed. WORKING doesn't include just whining online.

And our usual government thug apologist comes to the thread arguing process instead of purpose.

You love discrimination when it's against people you don't like.

Yes, I know it's so much easier for you to call me a "government thug apologist" rather than actually WORK to repeal laws you don't like. So much easier than actually doing anything.

the laws are being wrongly applied in the first place. A baker baking a cake for a contracted event is not a Public Accommodation.

Kind of like progressives wanting more taxes so government can do charity with other people's money instead of doing it themselves?

 

[martybegan]

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

Says someone who thinks it's constructive to whine online but not to actually WORK to get "unjust" laws repealed.

And again with the "I don't want to argue being a government stooge bigot, so I will whine about "DOOO SOMETHING" instead of debating the topic at hand.

What a twat you are.

 

[miketx]

Maybe all the queers will leave Texas now!

 

[danielpalos]

Venturing in public accommodation is not a Right, it is a Privilege and subject to some Immunity.

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

How, Irrelevant as a argument. It really is worthless in the non-porn sector.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

 

[martybegan]

Free exercise Rights outweigh your right to get a product you want from a specific vendor.

A contracted service is not a public accommodation.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

How, Irrelevant as a argument. It really is worthless in the non-porn sector.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

More gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

How, Irrelevant as a argument. It really is worthless in the non-porn sector.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

More gibberish.

What is "gibberish" about it?

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Be, specific.

 

[martybegan]

Pure gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

How, Irrelevant as a argument. It really is worthless in the non-porn sector.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

More gibberish.

What is "gibberish" about it?

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Be, specific.

Gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal.

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

How, Irrelevant as a argument. It really is worthless in the non-porn sector.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

More gibberish.

What is "gibberish" about it?

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Be, specific.

Gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal. x2

 

[martybegan]

you don't get to press the win button just because you string some words together to make yourself sound smart.

Now how about you devolve to your usual clue and cause bullshit?

How, Irrelevant as a argument. It really is worthless in the non-porn sector.

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

More gibberish.

What is "gibberish" about it?

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Be, specific.

Gibberish.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument, by having nothing but Repeal. x2

Nope, you don't get to "win" by typing words in a string and pretending you have a point.

Either that, or, ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

 

[danielpalos]

What is "gibberish" about it?

You have to be moral to ask for morality.

Should we ask a Pope for a Contingent of Subject Matter Specialists, to Inquire into the moral Rectitude of Persons alleging to have morals?

Otherwise, we have legal ethics.

Be, specific.

Don't be, incompetent, dear.