Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[SwimExpert]

Is it really such an infringement? If really have a sincere belief in opposition to same sex marriage, why would they not want everyone to know?

This nation is being choked on infringements. While this may be one minor infringement, it is feeding a larger problem.

It is lawyer bait. Evidence of a state that is beginning to regulate every little detail of our personal and professional lives.

So, a solution with less government involvement is sending us down a path for total government control? That's just obtuse.

 

[SwimExpert]

SwimExpert what kind of area do you live in?

Can you give a description of whether it's country town or inner city? progressive? non-progressive? white, multiracial or other? repub, dem?

It's a place. Main population is people.

 

[Nosmo King]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

The victim is the same sex couple. There is no religious "right" to discriminate. Do you have a religious "right" to refuse service to African Americans? To Jewish Americans? To Islamic Americans?

Please cite for us all where Jesus Christ admonished His followers to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this ugly, anti-Christian dogma come from? How does it square with true Christian teaching, I.e. Love your neighbor and you would be loved? Or cast not the first stone for you too are a sinner?

Nowhere! It's simply using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if signage is needed to protect the bigots, I suggest they post a large sign in their window stating: Due to our abiding faith in Jesus Christ, we refuse to serve SKEEVY, maggot-infested queers.

If you're a bigot, own your bigotry.

 

[bodecea]

I do not like your stipulation.

Government should of stayed out of the marriage scheme to begin with.

So...we eliminate all civil marriages?

 

[occupied]

No one really gives a shit if haters feel infringed upon. Most of us go through our entire lives and never even bump up against laws meant to end discrimination.

It is lawyer bait.

It is irrelevant whether or not they are actually racist, because the law is going to paint them as one either way.

Anyways, do you really believe your discrimination laws are actually working towards ending discrimination? Clearly they are making matters worse, and this is to be suspected since racism and bigotry is always founded on politicization.

Clearly making matters worse? Not from my point of view. I am old enough to remember white protestant males had it all and everyone else sucked hind tit. I know these laws inflame the haters to hold on all the more tightly to their hate but I do not care about them or their feelings, I really don't. They will be dead one day and hopefully their children will not carry on with the same shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

Public accommodations laws with provisions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation exist on a state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.

For example, Michigan’s public accommodations laws have no provision for sexual orientation, businesses in that state are at liberty to refuse to accommodate LGBT patrons.

For those who live in states or jurisdictions whose public accommodations laws have provisions for sexual orientation, those hostile to gay Americans may through the political process seek to have those laws repealed, or their sexual orientation provisions removed, rendering your inane ‘proposal’ completely devoid of merit and worth.

Otherwise, public accommodations laws with provisions prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and perfectly Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

 

[owebo]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

The world indeed would be a better place without you democrats.....

 

[BULLDOG]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

That's not a new idea. All kinds of businesses used to put up "No Colored Allowed " signs to keep out black people too, and wanted to let the money do the speaking. It was just as disgusting and wrong for them as it would be for you

 

[owebo]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

That's not a new idea. All kinds of businesses used to put up "No Colored Allowed " signs to keep out black people too, and wanted to let the money do the speaking. It was just as disgusting and wrong for them as it would be for you

I think every democrat business did....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

A religious organization does not have to marry LGBTQ.

See. No problem.

Someone holding a product out to the public is subject to PA laws. Get over it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one really gives a shit if haters feel infringed upon. Most of us go through our entire lives and never even bump up against laws meant to end discrimination.

It is lawyer bait.

It is irrelevant whether or not they are actually racist, because the law is going to paint them as one either way.

Anyways, do you really believe your discrimination laws are actually working towards ending discrimination? Clearly they are making matters worse, and this is to be suspected since racism and bigotry is always founded on politicization.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation exist as commercial regulatory policy, ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes state and local governments to safeguard the markets and protect against their disruption, where allowing businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to the markets:

‘[T]he constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce."

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

The victim is the same sex couple. There is no religious "right" to discriminate. Do you have a religious "right" to refuse service to African Americans? To Jewish Americans? To Islamic Americans?

Please cite for us all where Jesus Christ admonished His followers to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this ugly, anti-Christian dogma come from? How does it square with true Christian teaching, I.e. Love your neighbor and you would be loved? Or cast not the first stone for you too are a sinner?

Nowhere! It's simply using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if signage is needed to protect the bigots, I suggest they post a large sign in their window stating: Due to our abiding faith in Jesus Christ, we refuse to serve SKEEVY, maggot-infested queers.

If you're a bigot, own your bigotry.

Exactly.

One cannot use religion as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to violate just and proper laws:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Public accommodations laws are in fact valid laws, and clearly prohibit conduct – businesses discriminating against patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation – the states and local jurisdictions are free to regulate.

 

[The Great Goose]

SwimExpert what kind of area do you live in?

Can you give a description of whether it's country town or inner city? progressive? non-progressive? white, multiracial or other? repub, dem?

It's a place. Main population is people.

oh VERY helpful.

NOT.

 

[Onyx]

Public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation exist as commercial regulatory policy, ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Government does not create integrity. It only enforces its own distorted version of honesty, and that is pretty funny considering the state is the most dishonest institution in existence.

Even if they do ensure integrity, they still lead to racism and bigotry through the politicization of social conflict.

What do you have besides conjecture?

-Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes state and local governments to safeguard the markets and protect against their disruption, where allowing businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to the markets:

In doing so, it forces more market disruption and conditions greater discrimination.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

The victim is the same sex couple. There is no religious "right" to discriminate. Do you have a religious "right" to refuse service to African Americans? To Jewish Americans? To Islamic Americans?

Please cite for us all where Jesus Christ admonished His followers to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this ugly, anti-Christian dogma come from? How does it square with true Christian teaching, I.e. Love your neighbor and you would be loved? Or cast not the first stone for you too are a sinner?

Nowhere! It's simply using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if signage is needed to protect the bigots, I suggest they post a large sign in their window stating: Due to our abiding faith in Jesus Christ, we refuse to serve SKEEVY, maggot-infested queers.

If you're a bigot, own your bigotry.

Exactly.

One cannot use religion as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to violate just and proper laws:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Public accommodations laws are in fact valid laws, and clearly prohibit conduct – businesses discriminating against patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation – the states and local jurisdictions are free to regulate.

What if we had a law that forced you to do something that prohibited your from practicing your faith as you want. Your faith tells you that you can do this and doing that is strictly prohibited. The law then tells you that you must do what is strictly prohibited. Could you say that you were free to practice your own faith as you wanted in that situation?

 

[SwimExpert]

SwimExpert what kind of area do you live in?

Can you give a description of whether it's country town or inner city? progressive? non-progressive? white, multiracial or other? repub, dem?

It's a place. Main population is people.

oh VERY helpful.

NOT.

I really don't understand what more you're looking for, or why.

 

[SwimExpert]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

I agree, your post was as ignorant as it was ridiculous. This is the problem with liberals. Even when you get the exact outcome you want, you'll still bitch and whine unless the government is handing it to you. Even when the open market provides the same outcome more effectively, you still can't have it.

 

[Nosmo King]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

The victim is the same sex couple. There is no religious "right" to discriminate. Do you have a religious "right" to refuse service to African Americans? To Jewish Americans? To Islamic Americans?

Please cite for us all where Jesus Christ admonished His followers to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this ugly, anti-Christian dogma come from? How does it square with true Christian teaching, I.e. Love your neighbor and you would be loved? Or cast not the first stone for you too are a sinner?

Nowhere! It's simply using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if signage is needed to protect the bigots, I suggest they post a large sign in their window stating: Due to our abiding faith in Jesus Christ, we refuse to serve SKEEVY, maggot-infested queers.

If you're a bigot, own your bigotry.

Exactly.

One cannot use religion as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to violate just and proper laws:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Public accommodations laws are in fact valid laws, and clearly prohibit conduct – businesses discriminating against patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation – the states and local jurisdictions are free to regulate.

What if we had a law that forced you to do something that prohibited your from practicing your faith as you want. Your faith tells you that you can do this and doing that is strictly prohibited. The law then tells you that you must do what is strictly prohibited. Could you say that you were free to practice your own faith as you wanted in that situation?

Santaria. Voodoo. In that faith, live animal sacrifice is part of the ritual. Yet live animal sacrifice is prohibited in the United States.

 

[The Great Goose]

SwimExpert what kind of area do you live in?

Can you give a description of whether it's country town or inner city? progressive? non-progressive? white, multiracial or other? repub, dem?

It's a place. Main population is people.

oh VERY helpful.

NOT.

I really don't understand what more you're looking for, or why.

why?
Because I'm a flaming queen and these things interest me.

What I'm looking for...

1. country town, suburb or inner city?

2. progressive? non-progressive?

3. white, multiracial or other?

4. repub, dem?

Please answer each of the four questions regarding the demographics of your area of business.

 

[jillian]

I do not like your stipulation.

Government should of stayed out of the marriage scheme to begin with.

how do you figure? government gives the right to marry and the legal rights and obligations coming from that status.

nice try