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

[Nosmo King]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

 

[Redfish]

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

Very simply. The marriage license creates, in the eyes of the state, a new entity. A coupling of two consenting adults without prior blood relationships into a new economic entity with the full benefits and protections of the law under the marriage contract.

Polygamists do not recognize the essential tenet of that contract: it's TWO people forming the new entity. Polygamists should, rather, incorporate under the protections and benefits of that specific contract.

so, two people is OK, but more that two is bad? do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

 

[Redfish]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

what is in their mind does not matter. they have the right to offer their services to who they want.

but , again, why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker? answer that please.

 

[Nosmo King]

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

Very simply. The marriage license creates, in the eyes of the state, a new entity. A coupling of two consenting adults without prior blood relationships into a new economic entity with the full benefits and protections of the law under the marriage contract.

Polygamists do not recognize the essential tenet of that contract: it's TWO people forming the new entity. Polygamists should, rather, incorporate under the protections and benefits of that specific contract.

so, two people is OK, but more that two is bad? do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Not in the context of the marriage license. That license is intentionally designed to accommodate two individuals. A gang of three or more does not qualify for a marriage license. Such groups are, in fact, able to avail themselves under other contract law, but not marriage. Contracts are designed to meet the needs of specific individuals and groups.

 

[bodecea]

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

All morals are selective, depending on the person in question.

Exactly! Thank you for finally recognizing that. Thus the need for PA (public accomodation) laws and the concept of Rule of Law.

LOL, but you want YOUR morals forced on everyone else by the government. Thats the hypocrisy of the gay agenda.

How am I forcing my morals onto you? Be very clear.

 

[Redfish]

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

Very simply. The marriage license creates, in the eyes of the state, a new entity. A coupling of two consenting adults without prior blood relationships into a new economic entity with the full benefits and protections of the law under the marriage contract.

Polygamists do not recognize the essential tenet of that contract: it's TWO people forming the new entity. Polygamists should, rather, incorporate under the protections and benefits of that specific contract.

so, two people is OK, but more that two is bad? do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Not in the context of the marriage license. That license is intentionally designed to accommodate two individuals. A gang of three or more does not qualify for a marriage license. Such groups are, in fact, able to avail themselves under other contract law, but not marriage. Contracts are designed to meet the needs of specific individuals and groups.

yes, and that discriminates against multiple marriages just as man/woman marriage laws discriminate against gays.

you fools are setting the stage for legalization of all forms of marriage and you don't even realize it.

 

[Nosmo King]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

what is in their mind does not matter. they have the right to offer their services to who they want.

but , again, why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker? answer that please.

They have no more right to deny services than a landlord has a right to deny a minority housing.

Now," why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker?" Perhaps that bigoted baker happens to be the best baker in town. Perhaps that baker is the ONLY baker in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best value in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best, most innovative cake designs in town.

Why should a Gay couple be forced to accept second or third or fourth best when their money is just as green as a heterosexual couple?

 

[Redfish]

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

All morals are selective, depending on the person in question.

Exactly! Thank you for finally recognizing that. Thus the need for PA (public accomodation) laws and the concept of Rule of Law.

LOL, but you want YOUR morals forced on everyone else by the government. Thats the hypocrisy of the gay agenda.

How am I forcing my morals onto you? Be very clear.

by punishing thoughts and beliefs. have you read 1984 by George Orwell or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? If not, you need to.

 

[bodecea]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

what is in their mind does not matter. they have the right to offer their services to who they want.

but , again, why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker? answer that please.

In a state with PA laws, that isn't necessarily true. And if they don't like the PA laws....they should either choose another business or else go to a state that has no PA laws or fight legally to have said PA laws repealed. Instead they whine.

 

[Redfish]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

what is in their mind does not matter. they have the right to offer their services to who they want.

but , again, why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker? answer that please.

They have no more right to deny services than a landlord has a right to deny a minority housing.

Now," why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker?" Perhaps that bigoted baker happens to be the best baker in town. Perhaps that baker is the ONLY baker in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best value in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best, most innovative cake designs in town.

Why should a Gay couple be forced to accept second or third or fourth best when their money is just as green as a heterosexual couple?

great, but you know thats not the case, they chose the anti-gay baker so they could make a big stink and sue him for his thoughts and beliefs.

 

[Nosmo King]

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

Very simply. The marriage license creates, in the eyes of the state, a new entity. A coupling of two consenting adults without prior blood relationships into a new economic entity with the full benefits and protections of the law under the marriage contract.

Polygamists do not recognize the essential tenet of that contract: it's TWO people forming the new entity. Polygamists should, rather, incorporate under the protections and benefits of that specific contract.

so, two people is OK, but more that two is bad? do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Not in the context of the marriage license. That license is intentionally designed to accommodate two individuals. A gang of three or more does not qualify for a marriage license. Such groups are, in fact, able to avail themselves under other contract law, but not marriage. Contracts are designed to meet the needs of specific individuals and groups.

yes, and that discriminates against multiple marriages just as man/woman marriage laws discriminate against gays.

you fools are setting the stage for legalization of all forms of marriage and you don't even realize it.

Again, and very simply, the marriage contract establishes a new relationship to two individuals who had no such relationship, either by blood or consent (as in 'common law' marriages).

A group of more than two may still avail themselves of other aspects of contract law.

 

[bodecea]

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

All morals are selective, depending on the person in question.

Exactly! Thank you for finally recognizing that. Thus the need for PA (public accomodation) laws and the concept of Rule of Law.

LOL, but you want YOUR morals forced on everyone else by the government. Thats the hypocrisy of the gay agenda.

How am I forcing my morals onto you? Be very clear.

by punishing thoughts and beliefs. have you read 1984 by George Orwell or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? If not, you need to.

No one is punishing anyone's thoughts or beliefs. You are being ridiculous here. And yes, I've read both of those books. You continue to embarass yourself.

 

[bodecea]

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

what is in their mind does not matter. they have the right to offer their services to who they want.

but , again, why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker? answer that please.

They have no more right to deny services than a landlord has a right to deny a minority housing.

Now," why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker?" Perhaps that bigoted baker happens to be the best baker in town. Perhaps that baker is the ONLY baker in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best value in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best, most innovative cake designs in town.

Why should a Gay couple be forced to accept second or third or fourth best when their money is just as green as a heterosexual couple?

great, but you know thats not the case, they chose the anti-gay baker so they could make a big stink and sue him for his thoughts and beliefs.

How do you know that to be a fact? Did they ask around to find out who the "anti-gay baker" was and then target him? Again, you are being quite ridiculous.

 

[Nosmo King]

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

What is the reason vendors will not consent to supply goods and services to a same sex couple? Is it their awkward belief in scripture, or is it such vendors simply find homosexuals 'icky'?

what is in their mind does not matter. they have the right to offer their services to who they want.

but , again, why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker? answer that please.

They have no more right to deny services than a landlord has a right to deny a minority housing.

Now," why would a gay couple want their cake baked by an anti-gay baker?" Perhaps that bigoted baker happens to be the best baker in town. Perhaps that baker is the ONLY baker in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best value in town. Perhaps that baker offers the best, most innovative cake designs in town.

Why should a Gay couple be forced to accept second or third or fourth best when their money is just as green as a heterosexual couple?

great, but you know thats not the case, they chose the anti-gay baker so they could make a big stink and sue him for his thoughts and beliefs.

be that as it may, they are not suing to punish him for his thoughts and beliefs, no matter how corrosive those beliefs are. they are suing because they were unduly discriminated against..

 

[bodecea]

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

Bigamy and polygamy is illegal. Being gay and gay marriage (in the state in question) are not.

 

[Nosmo King]

It might, at first glance, to be merely semantic, but you keep saying wedding vendors are forced to "attend" same sex weddings. There is a difference between 'attending' a wedding and 'working' a wedding. The vendors are just plying their trade. They are not required, nor requested to approve of the happy couple.

Could a restaurantuer refuse service to a walki in four top of homosexuals? I wonder what that restaurantuer's attitude might be on a slow Tuesday night? But the maitre d does not sidle up to the table, the sommelier doesn't bring an extra glass and make a toast.

And wedding vendors, with the exception of the waiters and bartenders and musical entertainment should be invisible. It's the bride's day, not the day for a vendor to grant his empremator even on the occasion.

A restaurant serves a homosexual couple that comes in, sits down and places their order. The bakery boxes up the cupcakes whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. No one has told them no. The vendors simply by virtue of their appearance at a same sex event advertise their approval of such an event. There is a difference between going out to a restaurant and sitting down, and bringing that vendor to your location. Having that vendor's name on his or her personal product is an advertisement for future business. It is an advertisement specifically to a subset of the population that the vendor does not wish to target in his advertising program. It is forced speech. Not only is the speech forced, there is no way for the vendor to deny the speech forced from his mouth. Every picture the photographer takes is a statement of expertise. Every bite of wedding cake advertises the baker's talent. Every song the singer sings is an advertisement of quality of work. At a same sex event, all that advertising is directed to same sex couples indicating a willingness to accept their business.

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

Should a bigot put a placard in his window announcing his bigotry? Perhaps that way, the consumers won't be shocked to find out their baker is a bigot. Just like the "Whites Only" signs in the Jim Crow south.

The bigot's sign might even be honest, if not entirely wrong. Something like: DUE TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND OUR LOVE AND RESPECT FOR JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU", WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE OUR SERVICES TO THE DISGUSTING, VILE AND SINFUL HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY.

Or:

OUR BELIEFS BASED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES AND SCRIPTURE PREVENTS US FROM OFFERING OUR SERVICES TO THOSE WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS SUCH AS JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED.

 

[Katzndogz]

A restaurant serves a homosexual couple that comes in, sits down and places their order. The bakery boxes up the cupcakes whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. No one has told them no. The vendors simply by virtue of their appearance at a same sex event advertise their approval of such an event. There is a difference between going out to a restaurant and sitting down, and bringing that vendor to your location. Having that vendor's name on his or her personal product is an advertisement for future business. It is an advertisement specifically to a subset of the population that the vendor does not wish to target in his advertising program. It is forced speech. Not only is the speech forced, there is no way for the vendor to deny the speech forced from his mouth. Every picture the photographer takes is a statement of expertise. Every bite of wedding cake advertises the baker's talent. Every song the singer sings is an advertisement of quality of work. At a same sex event, all that advertising is directed to same sex couples indicating a willingness to accept their business.

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

Should a bigot put a placard in his window announcing his bigotry? Perhaps that way, the consumers won't be shocked to find out their baker is a bigot. Just like the "Whites Only" signs in the Jim Crow south.

The bigot's sign might even be honest, if not entirely wrong. Something like: DUE TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND OUR LOVE AND RESPECT FOR JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU", WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE OUR SERVICES TO THE DISGUSTING, VILE AND SINFUL HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY.

Or:

OUR BELIEFS BASED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES AND SCRIPTURE PREVENTS US FROM OFFERING OUR SERVICES TO THOSE WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS SUCH AS JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED.

Except they haven't refused service to anyone. That's where you fall off the wagon. No one has been refused service. They have been refused personal services.

While the Bible admonishes not to judge others, do you think that extends to whether or not someone has the right or obligation to judge their OWN actions? Do you have the right, for yourself, to judge that your stealing something is wrong so you don't do it? Not a single one of these vendors is judging someone else. They are only judging their own behavior. They don't want to participate in that behavior themselves or have their actions manipulated to make it appear that they approve of such behavior.

 

[Nosmo King]

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

Should a bigot put a placard in his window announcing his bigotry? Perhaps that way, the consumers won't be shocked to find out their baker is a bigot. Just like the "Whites Only" signs in the Jim Crow south.

The bigot's sign might even be honest, if not entirely wrong. Something like: DUE TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND OUR LOVE AND RESPECT FOR JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU", WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE OUR SERVICES TO THE DISGUSTING, VILE AND SINFUL HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY.

Or:

OUR BELIEFS BASED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES AND SCRIPTURE PREVENTS US FROM OFFERING OUR SERVICES TO THOSE WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS SUCH AS JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED.

Except they haven't refused service to anyone. That's where you fall off the wagon. No one has been refused service. They have been refused personal services.

While the Bible admonishes not to judge others, do you think that extends to whether or not someone has the right or obligation to judge their OWN actions? Do you have the right, for yourself, to judge that your stealing something is wrong so you don't do it? Not a single one of these vendors is judging someone else. They are only judging their own behavior. They don't want to participate in that behavior themselves or have their actions manipulated to make it appear that they approve of such behavior.

The services wedding vendors supply are not personal services, it's their stock in trade.

And if their objections are defended by what they perceive as a slight against their religious freedom, they should make their concerns clear right up front with a sign at their front door. The wording I suggested simply points out the futility of wrapping one's self in scripture to get 'moral' cover for hatred and fear.

 

[Pop23]

They were wrong

Yes, they are wrong (there are still people that believe interracial marriage is a sin)...but the anti gay bigots using the bible to justify their bigotry are just as wrong. Both sets of bigots, however, feel they are equally justified.

One was right, the other wrong. Delusions did not make blacks skin color different.

Both are wrong, but both believe equally that they are right. Same bigots, different target.

Nope, a black man was discriminated against due to a slight variation of skin color.

That variation was not due to the delusions of the Man.

This flimsy shield of 'delusion' just isn't cutting the mustard. Your misunderstanding of human sexuality is leading your argument to an indefensible position. Just because you fail to grasp the science, the sociological impact, the truth about homosexuality does not give you claim to drive the argument with your ignorance.

If you continue to claim that a life long commitment to a member of the opposite sex is, in your opinion, delusional, you will in fact continue to expose your attitude as uneducated at best, horribly bigoted and ignorant at worst. Either way, inaccuracies and ignorance is no defense while rationalizing discrimination.

I would expect no less from an enabler justifying it's enabling.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

Should a bigot put a placard in his window announcing his bigotry? Perhaps that way, the consumers won't be shocked to find out their baker is a bigot. Just like the "Whites Only" signs in the Jim Crow south.

The bigot's sign might even be honest, if not entirely wrong. Something like: DUE TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND OUR LOVE AND RESPECT FOR JESUS CHRIST WHO SAID "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU", WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE OUR SERVICES TO THE DISGUSTING, VILE AND SINFUL HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY.

Or:

OUR BELIEFS BASED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES AND SCRIPTURE PREVENTS US FROM OFFERING OUR SERVICES TO THOSE WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS SUCH AS JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED.

Except they haven't refused service to anyone. That's where you fall off the wagon. No one has been refused service. They have been refused personal services.

While the Bible admonishes not to judge others, do you think that extends to whether or not someone has the right or obligation to judge their OWN actions? Do you have the right, for yourself, to judge that your stealing something is wrong so you don't do it? Not a single one of these vendors is judging someone else. They are only judging their own behavior. They don't want to participate in that behavior themselves or have their actions manipulated to make it appear that they approve of such behavior.

The services wedding vendors supply are not personal services, it's their stock in trade.

And if their objections are defended by what they perceive as a slight against their religious freedom, they should make their concerns clear right up front with a sign at their front door. The wording I suggested simply points out the futility of wrapping one's self in scripture to get 'moral' cover for hatred and fear.

I agree, they should be allowed to post their restrictions. Just like a business should take the opportunity to post "Same Sex Weddings a Specialty". The court in the Elane Photography case specifically said they could post a disclaimer if they wished. More businesses should. That would be legal. Just post a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex relationships, the participants are all going to burn in hell forever and are cursed forever more, but the service will still be provided UNDER PROTEST.

Is that okay with you?