Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

[OriginalShroom]

 

[JoeB131]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

 

[JoeB131]

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

This is a case of STATE law, not federal, and yes, the federal and state governments DO have constitutional authorities to intervene in business transactions.

Look up "Commerce Clause".

 

[Seawytch]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

Yes the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority. Public Accommodation laws have withstood SCOTUS challenges. PA laws are perfectly legal...even when they apply to gays just like they apply to Christians.

 

[Redfish]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

Yes the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority. Public Accommodation laws have withstood SCOTUS challenges. PA laws are perfectly legal...even when they apply to gays just like they apply to Christians.

you are a one trick pony, wytchey. Is there anything to your life besides your gayness? is being a lesbian your entire identity?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

Yes the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority. Public Accommodation laws have withstood SCOTUS challenges. PA laws are perfectly legal...even when they apply to gays just like they apply to Christians.

you are a one trick pony, wytchey. Is there anything to your life besides your gayness? is being a lesbian your entire identity?

If you and others on the right would simply stop seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights, she wouldn't need to continue to fight for them, and you won't have to hear about it anymore.

 

[Redfish]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

Yes the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority. Public Accommodation laws have withstood SCOTUS challenges. PA laws are perfectly legal...even when they apply to gays just like they apply to Christians.

you are a one trick pony, wytchey. Is there anything to your life besides your gayness? is being a lesbian your entire identity?

If you and others on the right would simply stop seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights, she wouldn't need to continue to fight for them, and you won't have to hear about it anymore.

horseshit--------I want all americans to have full civil rights. gay marriage is NOT a civil right.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no way that these business people can be forced to provide these kinds of personal services to gay people. No way.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no way that these business people can be forced to provide these kinds of personal services to gay people. No way.

Um, yeah, they can. Or they can pay really big fines. I'm good with either.

 

[Mac1958]

There is no way that these business people can be forced to provide these kinds of personal services to gay people. No way.

They can only be forced if the gay people decide they're going to punish the business person and demand the law is enforced.

The couple could have told the guy he's an asshole, walked out, and gone somewhere else. But instead, they chose to make an issue of it and make an example out of the guy so that, in the future, more people would be intimidated from voicing their opinion.

This was never about the isolated incident or the victimhood of the gay couple. It was, as always, about punishment, intimidation, submission, and control, all on a much larger scale.

So yeah, they can be forced. If the "victims" want to see them punished.

.

 

[Redfish]

There is no way that these business people can be forced to provide these kinds of personal services to gay people. No way.

They can only be forced if the gay people decide they're going to punish the business person and demand the law is enforced.

The couple could have told the guy he's an asshole, walked out, and gone somewhere else. But instead, they chose to make an issue of it and make an example out of the guy so that, in the future, more people would be intimidated from voicing their opinion.

This was never about the isolated incident or the victimhood of the gay couple. It was, as always, about punishment, intimidation, submission, and control, all on a much larger scale.

So yeah, they can be forced. If the "victims" want to see them punished.

.

exactly, liberals need imaginary victims in order for their failed ideology to work.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Whereas I believe we should dispense with all laws that cause government to intrude into the private interactions between consenting adults.

Absolutely.

The gays folks did not consent to be discriminated against by a company that openly offered a service.

What does that have to do with what I said? Federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the interactions between private people, including business. That means that the "civil rights" laws that prohibit discrimination are entirely illegal.

Yes the Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority. Public Accommodation laws have withstood SCOTUS challenges. PA laws are perfectly legal...even when they apply to gays just like they apply to Christians.

If you're measure of constitutionality is SCOTUS decisions, you'll never understand what the Constitution is and what is its purpose. If you think that SCOTUS truly decides what's constitutional, then slavery, denial of women's voting rights, and targeting religions for special persecution are all ok. You'll have to do better than that.