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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Here is the courts opinion in this case -->> http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf


Can you point out where the court ruled as you claim?



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

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..

horseshit, they are suing him for what he believes about homosexuality. He is not allowed to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Its punishment for thought crimes, plain and simple

 

[Redfish]

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?

its more than just religion, its biology.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals don't believe in biology. They make up their science as the go along depending on what feels good.

 

[bodecea]

Liberals don't believe in biology. They make up their science as the go along depending on what feels good.

If you have to make up a position to argue against, it's not much of a position, is it?

 

[Redfish]

Liberals don't believe in biology. They make up their science as the go along depending on what feels good.

If you have to make up a position to argue against, it's not much of a position, is it?

the truth is not a position, it is the truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

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..

horseshit, they are suing him for what he believes about homosexuality. He is not allowed to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Its punishment for thought crimes, plain and simple

Wrong! They are suing over being discriminated against. It's really that simple.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

its more than just religion, its biology.

Let me understand this peculiar response. You don't believe that the defendants are claiming an infringement of their religous rights. Rather you would claim that they are being sued due to biology.

Now, what factors in biology make it the right thing to do when you discriminate? Isn't biology an immutable trait? Would you discriminate against anyone who did not meet your lofty biological standard? Hitler tried that.

Would you discriminate against a heterosexual couple if one or the other or both of them suffers from birth defects? What if their noses were to long or too wide? What if they were albinos?

Which biological factors spring the inner bigot?

 

[bodecea]

Liberals don't believe in biology. They make up their science as the go along depending on what feels good.

If you have to make up a position to argue against, it's not much of a position, is it?

the truth is not a position, it is the truth.

It's truth that "liberals don't believe in biology"?

 

[JoeB131]

As for fraud, I'm a minarchist and I have that covered both with criminal and civil enforcement. I'm referring to the gap between small government libertarian and socialist. Seriously, you people set such a high bar for yourselves. You want ROADS, you get MARXISM. What a dumb ass.

No, you want roads, you get SOME sort of collectivism. I'm sorry you are too stupid to see that.

 

[JoeB131]

Again with the revenge thing. Its all about being a petty twat for you, isn't it?

revenge is good.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Homosexuality exists in nature. Homosexuality is perfectly normal.

Ever see two male dogs humping. They don't have religion.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

I don't. I'm perfectly fine with legalling polygamy.

 

[kaz]

As for fraud, I'm a minarchist and I have that covered both with criminal and civil enforcement. I'm referring to the gap between small government libertarian and socialist. Seriously, you people set such a high bar for yourselves. You want ROADS, you get MARXISM. What a dumb ass.

No, you want roads, you get SOME sort of collectivism. I'm sorry you are too stupid to see that.

You are a stupid man, Joe. I keep telling you I'm not an anarchist. There seems to be no depth to your inability to grasp any point, no matter how simple it is.

That I support roads and courts and paying for them in no way justifies your endless redistribution of wealth programs. Yet every time I call you on that, you justify them with the minimal government services that I do support and call me an anarchist while ignoring the redistribution of wealth you support and I oppose. Is that fun debating to you? Posting over and over that you have no long term memory and you don't get it, you don't get anything? Seriously, how stupid are you?

 

[JoeB131]

That I support roads and courts and paying for them in no way justifies your endless redistribution of wealth programs. Yet every time I call you on that, you justify them with the minimal government services that I do support and call me an anarchist while ignoring the redistribution of wealth you support and I oppose. Is that fun debating to you? Posting over and over that you have no long term memory and you don't get it, you don't get anything? Seriously, how stupid are you?

Mocking Anarchist assholes is always a fun time.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Mocking Anarchist assholes is always a fun time.

So unless somebody is a raging statist, they're an anarchist?

 

[JoeB131]

Mocking Anarchist assholes is always a fun time.

So unless somebody is a raging statist, they're an anarchist?

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation about repealling laws that make no sense.

But guys like Kaz are upset that laws that have been in place for 50 years should not be discarded because in SOME states, they apply to gay people.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Mocking Anarchist assholes is always a fun time.

So unless somebody is a raging statist, they're an anarchist?

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation about repealling laws that make no sense.

But guys like Kaz are upset that laws that have been in place for 50 years should not be discarded because in SOME states, they apply to gay people.

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

 

[kaz]

That I support roads and courts and paying for them in no way justifies your endless redistribution of wealth programs. Yet every time I call you on that, you justify them with the minimal government services that I do support and call me an anarchist while ignoring the redistribution of wealth you support and I oppose. Is that fun debating to you? Posting over and over that you have no long term memory and you don't get it, you don't get anything? Seriously, how stupid are you?

Mocking Anarchist assholes is always a fun time.

Making yourself look stupid is mocking me. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[martybegan]

Again with the revenge thing. Its all about being a petty twat for you, isn't it?

revenge is good.

Again, petty twat.