I find it very disturbing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And reader, THAT is how THAT ... is done.

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

How so? And please, be specific, at least to the degree that your intellectual means will allow.

 

[Skylar]

And reader, THAT is how THAT ... is done.

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

How so? And please, be specific, at least to the degree that your intellectual means will allow.

Because your bizarre and summary 'declarations of victory' are your tell. Your indication to us that your have nothing relevant to add to the conversation, that you can't counter the arguments shredding your argument.....and you're looking for a way out.

So you 'declare victory'.....and run.

That's about as shallow as it gets.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry

But it seems the point went over your head.....gay marriage is here to stay

You do not lose your rights by giving gays theirs

Like I said, my point went sailing right over you head or you would have seen that I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.

You have failed to identify what rights you are giving up

Me? I'm not giving up any rights. I refuse to redefine a 4,000+ year old definition of marriage in order to change marriage into something it never was, and nobody can make me do that, so I'm good to go. I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions, but I don't want to have to give up a word that is important to me so I prefer those be called something else. And since I don't have any religious or moral problems in participating in functions related to gay marriage, that isn't an issue for me either. I have no problem attending gay 'weddings' and have done so.

But just as I don't think a gay florist or baker or caterer should be forced by law to participate in a function at Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think a florist, baker, or caterer who believes gay marriage is wrong should be florced by law to participate in a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I share their religion or convictions in any way. It only means that if we are to have liberty, we cannot be forced to give up our right to be who and what we are and do what we believe to be right for anybody elses benefit, gay, straight, pink, polka dot or whatever.

I'm trying to understand this concept. If I sell you a loaf of bread, does that mean I have to come to dinner with you?

I support the concept that anybody coming into your place of business for a loaf of bread should be able to buy a loaf of bread no matter who he or she is. But if I have to go to your place for the dinner, slice the bread, and set it up to display on the buffet line, that is a very different thing. If you are engaged in activities that I consider immoral or indefensible for any reason, I should not have to be present for that event, should not have to be seen at that event, etc.

So restaraunts should be able to discriminate against anyone they want or only wedding vendors? Bakers don't "participate", they bake, they deliver, they leave. Florists don't "participate", they create, they deliver, they leave. Caterers don't "participate", they cook, they serve, they leave. Photographers don't "participate", they shoot, they leave.

Again, if you all really and truly advocate for your "free" society (that we tried before...and the reason we now have Public Accommodation Laws) that says a business (that uses the taxpayer commons) can discriminate against anyone they want to for whatever reason they want to...then get Title II of the Civil Rights Act repealed. Then you've got to work on each of the states that have expanded their PA laws to include things like prohibiting discrimination based on height, weight, marital status, pregnancy, etc.

Let us know how the call to your representatives goes.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

 

[PratchettFan]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.”

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do; rather, the issue is acknowledging and respecting those rights comprehensively, up to and including allowing gay Americans access to marriage law, where measures seeking to deny them that right are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

What about polygamist-Americans or incest-Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...we're talking about (just some) lifestyles, not a race of people...

False premise = false conclusions.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Marriage law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons, or siblings marrying – one can't be 'discriminated against' with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Same-sex couples, however, are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, marriage law does accommodate two adult consenting partners who aren't related – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is discrimination, and in fact un-Constitutional.

IMO, it is not the place of the government to tell any competent adults what contracts they may or may not enter into.

That's the same reason I'm opposed to the public accommodations and protected classes stipulations of civil rights law.

Not quite the same. When I open my doors to the public, I am engaging in an open contract which is open to the public. To deny members of the public is reneging on that contract.

 

[Seawytch]

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

White supremacy is unlikely to be included in any federal, state or local PA law. They could try the religion angle I suppose.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it isn't. Look up the word inalienable and then tell me one right you have under the Constitution which meets that definition.

The Constitution is the charter of law... dumbass.

The Charter of American PRINCIPLES; that which the charter of law is designed to SUSTAIN... declared our inalienable rights as SELF-EVIDENT...

In truth, the Founders likely had no means to imagine a world, where intellectual depravity would be so profound as to preclude the average Euro-peon from being unable to distinguish LAW from PRINCIPLE.

But it is so sweet of you to demonstrate the nature of Foreign Ideas, Hostile to American Principle.

Tell me, in what part of Britain do you live, or are you from if you're an imported Euro-peon.

So you can't tell me. What a surprise. Instead you resort to personal attack. Again, what a surprise.

 

[PratchettFan]

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

White supremacy is unlikely to be included in any federal, state or local PA law. They could try the religion angle I suppose.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race. If white supremacy isn't about race, then gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation.

 

[PratchettFan]

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Our rights are in fact inalienable, but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v Heller (2008)).

Constitutional case law determines at what point government has exceeded its authority to place restrictions on our rights, safeguarding the protected liberties all Americans enjoy.

Our rights may be limited, but not taken away.

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution" fails as an argument.

Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or given away. If you are in prison for life, can you own a weapon?

 

[Seawytch]

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

White supremacy is unlikely to be included in any federal, state or local PA law. They could try the religion angle I suppose.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race. If white supremacy isn't about race, then gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation.

But the business is not discriminating on the bases of race. No other whites are turned away from the business, only one that identifies as a white supremacist group. White supremacy is not covered in a PA protections I know of.

 

[deltex1]

Marriage is a religious practice

Has nothing to do with the fucking government

Don't any one see this?

Marriage is a legal contract. It requires a license from the state and carries with it a multitude of rights and privileges. You can marry with a license and no religion and you will be married. Marry with religion and no license, and you will not be married. If you want it to be purely religious, then get to your representative and get the state out of the business altogether. Until then, it's not religious.

I am disturbed by Lanny Davis' teeth.

 

[PratchettFan]

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

White supremacy is unlikely to be included in any federal, state or local PA law. They could try the religion angle I suppose.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race. If white supremacy isn't about race, then gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation.

But the business is not discriminating on the bases of race. No other whites are turned away from the business, only one that identifies as a white supremacist group. White supremacy is not covered in a PA protections I know of.

Gay marriage isn't protected either. Sexual orientation is, but no gays were turned away from the florists shop. She just didn't want to do the event. I can only repeat, if white supremacy isn't about race, then gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I grew up with guns, have always shot guns and own quite a few.

JMO but 9mm is not a good place to start.

Be that as it may, get some professional help and don't get caught up in the current gun insanity.

Marriage is a religious practice

Has nothing to do with the fucking government

Don't any one see this?

Marriage is a legal contract. It requires a license from the state and carries with it a multitude of rights and privileges. You can marry with a license and no religion and you will be married. Marry with religion and no license, and you will not be married. If you want it to be purely religious, then get to your representative and get the state out of the business altogether. Until then, it's not religious.

I am disturbed by Lanny Davis' teeth.

I wish i caught this dumb ass post

Fuck that jack ass

Marriage is not a god damn legal contract, the fucking liberals stuck their ass in it

Marriage is between a wife a husband and god, you cant change that love no matter how many laws you pass.

 

[PratchettFan]

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You gays and Lesbos want to have your fake legal marriages , go ahead Don't give a fuck, but not good in gods eyes


And you can never change that on earth.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nobody is born a White Supremacist. It is not a protected class.

No one is born married. The florist had no problem serving gays, she just didn't want to be involved in a gay marriage - which was against her religious beliefs. Race is a protected class and white supremacists are all about race.

This really is something which needs to be considered. Equal protection means just that. It has to be equal. If you can deny services to someone because you don't like "those people" then they can as well.

 

[dblack]

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

I don't think so. I wouldn't want to be seen anywhere on the premises of a Westboro Baptist function even if the building was closed and everybody had gone home. Such is my repugnance and abhorrence for what they stand for; what they do. And I would think it criminal if a gay person was required by law to be there, be seen there, to participate in an event there, before it starts, during it, or taking everything down afterward.

I assume you don't include government employees in that, let me know if I'm wrong.

That is a side which does need to be seen. If a gay marriage is a protected event, then so is a Westboro event. An African-American caterer cannot refuse to cater a KKK rally. This is about equal protection, not special protection. At the same time, we have the issue of state rights. If it is a valid right of the state to make discrimination illegal, where is the end of that right? For DBlack, that is simple. He thinks the state does not have the right at all. But for those of us who think it does, how far does it go? Personally, I think there is no limit - at least in terms of things open to the public. I see nothing in the Constitution which creates a limit.

But let me turn it around to explore this further. For those who think the florist is wrong. If the florist was black and the event was a local chapter of the White Supremacists of America chapter, would she be in violation of that law for refusing service?

Government employees are not running private businesses. They should do whatever the rules specify for their government job. Or quit.

I don't want to get into a lot of 'what ifs' here, but I don't care WHO it is. Nobody, black or white or polka dot should be forced to participate in a White Supremacist event or any other event that he/she does not wish to participate in. And THAT would be equal protection as much as non discriminatory rules are equal protection. Sell them the bouquet or the dozen doughnuts or whatever if they come into your place of business, yes. But have to go to their premises and be part of an activity that is abhorrent or wrong or immoral to you? Nope.

That should never be the law. And I don't care how any law is written or what any judge's opinion is on that. That should never be the law.

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

In my opinion, if there is truly equal protection, a plumber doesn't have to attend an event or activity he objects to any more than anybody else does.