Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is America you have the right to choose who you want to do business with.When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.
Your mind is so made up you can't understand how wrong you are.No, I'm not wrong. You cannot be both a PA and a private not open to the public firm at the very same time. You would have to be two firms with a joint-operating agreement to use the "shared" facilities. If a customer walks in a sees a wedding cake for sale, you're screwed because in the front you are a PA, which makes the entire business a PA. It's not the offerings that make the difference, it's the setting.You are wrong. Just wrong. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. If the terms only include wedding cakes it includes nothing else. If the contract is to supply brownies to the military it doesn't include cookies.The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.
If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.
Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.
And just because you make brownies on the one contract and cookies on another if they want to write new contracts for both, both have to be offered.
"Public accommodations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]
Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[2][3] The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation."
If someone walked into the bakery and ordered a wedding cake and a dozen cupcakes the baker would be in breach of the exclusive contract to supply wedding cakes only to the church but would not be in breach for the cupcakes because cupcakes are not a part of the agreement.
At a glance, I don't have a problem with the "solution" suggested by this pastor.
If "Christian caterers" want to so drastically limit their own sales and profits with such arraignments, more power to them.
In the contract it would most likely forbid the church from using any other baker for wedding cakes. But as I said, you could try, however having the bride come down to the bakery to test out the weddings cakes would already place you in legal jeopardy if you we also a PA. The courts follow the money in cases like this. Just because you make your kid a corporation doesn't mean you can hide your cash in their name and get away with it.If the bride doesn't like the cake she is not a party to the contract and is free to get a cake anywhere she likes.That would depend on the contract but say the church signs one of those, to only use cakes at weddings made by one baker. What do you do if the bride doesn't like their cakes?Yes. But the company using UPS or FEDEX is not free to use another carrier. Not any more than my insurance company was free to let me go to CVS.While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.
Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.
It's not unlike an artist contracting an exclusive agreement with a gallery or an actor under an exclusive agreement with a studio. Even a singer under exclusive agreement with a label.
For a baker to enter into an exclusive agreement with a church to make wedding cakes means that all wedding cakes made by that baker already belong to the church.
And the same problem applies because if they say they are not a PA, and only sell to contracted clients, there's no way for them to dismiss another corporation from writing another contract and opening up Wedding Cakes R Us. Now they've lost all control over the cake once it leaves the store and they might as well just make a contract with an individual who doesn't mind doing gay weddings to set their cakes up. Same difference.
If a baker opens Wedding Cakes R Us they are free to establish competition.
And any non profit businesses, even the liberal ones? Right?Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.
Fabulous idea!
"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”
"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”
Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com
Let's also tax those parasitic ententes (churches) no more tax free rides
At a glance, I don't have a problem with the "solution" suggested by this pastor.
If "Christian caterers" want to so drastically limit their own sales and profits with such arraignments, more power to them.
Jesus would hate modern day American Christians who spread hate in his name.WWJB? What would Jesus bake?
or
WWJH
Who would Jesus hate?
And the basic tenets of Christianity go ignored by the righteous and pious.
At a glance, I don't have a problem with the "solution" suggested by this pastor.
If "Christian caterers" want to so drastically limit their own sales and profits with such arraignments, more power to them.
Oh are you going to pretend that the homo gestapo has actually successfully gaycotted Christian establishments?
Like Chick fil A?
Like these guys:
$216,590
Raised by 7,645 people in 22 hours
GoFundMe account raises thousands for Memories Pizza - ABC57 News - See the Difference Michiana
That would depend upon the contract now wouldn't it? And how can they order something that you don't offer to the public? They can't. The question is, and the courts would agree with me, if you are making weddings cakes in the back at the very same time you are a PA, then anyone can contract with you for a cake. You may not be able to sell one right over the counter, per the contract, but you can't say sorry, we only sell on contact but we won't write a contract with ________. Blank has as much legal much standing as the church unless you are a religious entity, which means you would not be a PA.Your mind is so made up you can't understand how wrong you are.No, I'm not wrong. You cannot be both a PA and a private not open to the public firm at the very same time. You would have to be two firms with a joint-operating agreement to use the "shared" facilities. If a customer walks in a sees a wedding cake for sale, you're screwed because in the front you are a PA, which makes the entire business a PA. It's not the offerings that make the difference, it's the setting.You are wrong. Just wrong. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. If the terms only include wedding cakes it includes nothing else. If the contract is to supply brownies to the military it doesn't include cookies.The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.
If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.
Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.
And just because you make brownies on the one contract and cookies on another if they want to write new contracts for both, both have to be offered.
"Public accommodations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]
Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[2][3] The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation."
If someone walked into the bakery and ordered a wedding cake and a dozen cupcakes the baker would be in breach of the exclusive contract to supply wedding cakes only to the church but would not be in breach for the cupcakes because cupcakes are not a part of the agreement.
He'd sue them, for libel.Jesus would hate modern day American Christians who spread hate in his name.WWJB? What would Jesus bake?
or
WWJH
Who would Jesus hate?
And the basic tenets of Christianity go ignored by the righteous and pious.
Oh, but the pizza place would serve queers in their restaurant happily. They just didn't want to cater the wedding, because it goes against their religious beliefs. Just like they said they wouldn't cater to an atheist wedding. Oh well freedom was good while it lasted.While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.
Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.
Nope. It depends upon the business.This is America you have the right to choose who you want to do business with.When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.
Don't worry Christian basher, there are the Episcopalians. They have gay priests.Cool.
Instead of just discriminating against gays, they can discriminate against everybody who doesn't fall in line with their particular religion.
And for the gazillionth time, there is NO "sanctity of marriage" to reclaim.
Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.
Fabulous idea!
"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”
"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”
Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com
When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.
Your mind is so made up you can't understand how wrong you are.No, I'm not wrong. You cannot be both a PA and a private not open to the public firm at the very same time. You would have to be two firms with a joint-operating agreement to use the "shared" facilities. If a customer walks in a sees a wedding cake for sale, you're screwed because in the front you are a PA, which makes the entire business a PA. It's not the offerings that make the difference, it's the setting.You are wrong. Just wrong. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. If the terms only include wedding cakes it includes nothing else. If the contract is to supply brownies to the military it doesn't include cookies.The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.
Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.
And just because you make brownies on the one contract and cookies on another if they want to write new contracts for both, both have to be offered.
"Public accommodations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]
Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[2][3] The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation."
If someone walked into the bakery and ordered a wedding cake and a dozen cupcakes the baker would be in breach of the exclusive contract to supply wedding cakes only to the church but would not be in breach for the cupcakes because cupcakes are not a part of the agreement.
They're committed to root out Christianity in any way possible. They will go to any extreme to do it (or try to do it). We'll end up going to war over this nonsense.
At a glance, I don't have a problem with the "solution" suggested by this pastor.
If "Christian caterers" want to so drastically limit their own sales and profits with such arraignments, more power to them.
In a nutshell, yepp, that's it.
Oh damn...you mean preachers who refuse to marry gays can't use our public roads? I'm embarrassed for you.We disagree about a lot of things and ...snip...
I am assuming they (those businesses that go this route) would therefore be declaring that they are no longer offering a product for the general public and therefore also would not use public methods of transportation, i.e. highways, to move their goods, either. I'm cool with that. Surely there are enough private roads for them to get from point A to point B and so.
But if they go belly-up because of their decision and can't put food on the table anymore, then that's their problem.
Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.
Fabulous idea!
"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”
"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”
Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com
Let's also tax those parasitic ententes (churches) no more tax free rides
