Pastor's solution to the Christian caterer/homo gestapo dilemma:

[AceRothstein]

Who has their reception at the church? I've been to probably 25-30 weddings in my life and never a reception at a church.

I've been to receptions at churches. But that has nothing to do with anything. The contracts aren't about where the cake is served. The church could opt to host the reception anywhere at all.

So now the church is a wedding planning business? Most reception locations have a list of caterers that they allow.

I'm sure you think you're making a point with this nonsense, but the only point you're making is that you're incapable of coherent thought.

It's simple. If queers are going to target Christian vendors and try to force them to contribute to and participate in sacrilegious events, Christian vendors will just stop catering those events except through a church middleman.

Yes it's stupid, but so is the hysterical insistence that Christian bakers and pizza makers feed the faces of fat faggots at fake weddings.

You said it yourself, it is stupid and it won't happen because of that.

What a maroon you are.

Oh, I didn't realize this was your idiotic thread. I'm sorry, I'd be embarrassed too if I started it.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Actually I like mine better.

The ultimate solution to this situation: HERE"S YOUR SIGN

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFER ANY CUSTOMER WHO REQUESTS OFF PREMISES SERVICES TO ANOTHER VENDOR.

Then the company has a ready made list of other vendors that provide similar services to theirs. Problem solved.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Actually I like mine better.

The ultimate solution to this situation: HERE"S YOUR SIGN

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFER ANY CUSTOMER WHO REQUESTS OFF PREMISES SERVICES TO ANOTHER VENDOR.

Then the company has a ready made list of other vendors that provide similar services to theirs. Problem solved.

This will not stop the gaystapo from suing the place into bankruptcy.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Actually I like mine better.

The ultimate solution to this situation: HERE"S YOUR SIGN

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFER ANY CUSTOMER WHO REQUESTS OFF PREMISES SERVICES TO ANOTHER VENDOR.

Then the company has a ready made list of other vendors that provide similar services to theirs. Problem solved.

This will not stop the gaystapo from suing the place into bankruptcy.

For what, providing a referral sheet?

 

[JoeB131]

Why are gays obsessed with forcing us to like them? I'm sorry gays gross me out, its not my fault I was born that way.

No, it's just your fault that you continue to be a bigot.

 

[JoeB131]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

Actually, it's kind of a dumb idea.

First, you limit your market to only those churches. Lots of folks are going to get their marriages done in churches that don't discriminate..

And since Churches are at the end of the day, money making scams, they are just going to want their cut of the pie.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually I like mine better.

The ultimate solution to this situation: HERE"S YOUR SIGN

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFER ANY CUSTOMER WHO REQUESTS OFF PREMISES SERVICES TO ANOTHER VENDOR.

Then the company has a ready made list of other vendors that provide similar services to theirs. Problem solved.

Um. No. Actually, that doesn't solve the problem at all.

It still violates Public Accommodation laws as much as sending black folks to a diner that will served "Their kind'.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually I like mine better.

The ultimate solution to this situation: HERE"S YOUR SIGN

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFER ANY CUSTOMER WHO REQUESTS OFF PREMISES SERVICES TO ANOTHER VENDOR.

Then the company has a ready made list of other vendors that provide similar services to theirs. Problem solved.

Um. No. Actually, that doesn't solve the problem at all.

It still violates Public Accommodation laws as much as sending black folks to a diner that will served "Their kind'.

What did you not understand about off premises services? Every diner I've ever been to has on premise service. BTW the business has no obligation to provide a reason for giving the customer the referral list other than it is their personal opinion that others could better serve the customers needs. Or are we now suing people for personal opinions?

 

[JoeB131]

What did you not understand about off premises services? Every diner I've ever been to has on premise service. BTW the business has no obligation to provide a reason for giving the customer the referral list other than it is their personal opinion that others could better serve the customers needs. Or are we now suing people for personal opinions?

Wow, you guys are going through an awful lot of trouble to defend a few bigots.

It's like you got totally rolled on this issue, and you are whining, "Please, please let me have this little bit of bigotry I can keep, pretty please?"

And the rest of us are saying, "No."

 

[koshergrl]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

Actually, it's kind of a dumb idea.

First, you limit your market to only those churches. Lots of folks are going to get their marriages done in churches that don't discriminate..

And since Churches are at the end of the day, money making scams, they are just going to want their cut of the pie.

$546,137
Raised by 18,598 people in 1 day

Whatever you say, pig.

Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

Actually, it's kind of a dumb idea.

First, you limit your market to only those churches. Lots of folks are going to get their marriages done in churches that don't discriminate..

And since Churches are at the end of the day, money making scams, they are just going to want their cut of the pie.

$546,137
Raised by 18,598 people in 1 day

Whatever you say, pig.

Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

The pigs are the ones who dropped off the Bigot Bucks, almost without exception anonymously.

 

[SwimExpert]

Instead of just discriminating against gays, they can discriminate against everybody who doesn't fall in line with their particular religion.

Now you're starting to understand. Nobody forces a business to be open, or to offer services in the first place. No amount of force of effort is going to legislate feelings into someone who doesn't have them. All it will do is escalate the cycle of jumping through hoops and positioning pawns.

 

[JoeB131]

$546,137
Raised by 18,598 people in 1 day

Whatever you say, pig.

Okay, Koshy, I realize you are like a really, really stupid person. But what does that have to do with what I just said?

Are you going to raise money for every business that runs afoul of boycotts and sanctions, or just the ones that get publicity?

Go watch some porn, get a load off.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We disagree about a lot of things and you are especially hateful to me, but the content of your OP, on the surface, imo looks legally feasable and I would say that if Christian merchants who are sooooooo sensitive about gays want to go this way, let 'em. If they can build a big enough market within those parameters, then go for it. I would wish them all the luck in the world.

I am going to ask C_Clayton_Jones - who IS versed in law, to look at this and give his input, because of course we could be wrong as to whether this is legally feasable.

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.

A fundamental element as to the feasibility of such a plan would be how 'business' is defined in a given jurisdiction’s public accommodations law. An independent, self-employed, 'freelance' photographer, for example, might not meet the criteria of what is considered a business open to, and engaging in commerce, with the general public; but even a farmer growing wheat solely for his own consumption is subject to regulatory policy (Wickard v. Filburn), where such a photographer might well be enjoined by a court from discriminating against a given class of persons, such as gay Americans.

With regard to:

“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.”

If “provide all other services as usual” means the merchant has an established business accommodating the general public, then that business would be subject to public accommodations law and potential legal action if that merchant refuses to accommodate gay patrons should that public accommodations law afford protections with regard to sexual orientation.

What's sad, of course, is that there are those so consumed by hate and ignorance, such as the OP and others on the social right, that they manifest this unwarranted need to contrive these ridiculous, unnecessary 'solutions' to 'problems' that in fact don't exist.

 

[OKTexas]

What did you not understand about off premises services? Every diner I've ever been to has on premise service. BTW the business has no obligation to provide a reason for giving the customer the referral list other than it is their personal opinion that others could better serve the customers needs. Or are we now suing people for personal opinions?

Wow, you guys are going through an awful lot of trouble to defend a few bigots.

It's like you got totally rolled on this issue, and you are whining, "Please, please let me have this little bit of bigotry I can keep, pretty please?"

And the rest of us are saying, "No."

Now we have a Muslim baker in dearbornistan MI that refused to make a gay wedding cake, told the guy to go to another baker down the street.

HIDDEN CAMERA Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

 

[bripat9643]

We disagree about a lot of things and you are especially hateful to me, but the content of your OP, on the surface, imo looks legally feasable and I would say that if Christian merchants who are sooooooo sensitive about gays want to go this way, let 'em. If they can build a big enough market within those parameters, then go for it. I would wish them all the luck in the world.

I am going to ask C_Clayton_Jones - who IS versed in law, to look at this and give his input, because of course we could be wrong as to whether this is legally feasable.

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.

They shouldn't be able to use city streets? You are a fucking moron.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

And any non profit businesses, even the liberal ones? Right?

Actually, I agree with you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We disagree about a lot of things and you are especially hateful to me, but the content of your OP, on the surface, imo looks legally feasable and I would say that if Christian merchants who are sooooooo sensitive about gays want to go this way, let 'em. If they can build a big enough market within those parameters, then go for it. I would wish them all the luck in the world.

I am going to ask C_Clayton_Jones - who IS versed in law, to look at this and give his input, because of course we could be wrong as to whether this is legally feasable.

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.

They shouldn't be able to use city streets? You are a fucking moron.

No, it's actually the law. If they want to remove themselves from PA laws, fine, but then they should either also remove themselves from the luxury of things that we ALL paid to build, or they should pay a fee to use those public things. Fair is fair. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jarlaxle]

if a gay church refused to do straight weddings the RW's would be crapping in their shorts screaming discrimination ..

See, you just lied!

 

[JoeB131]

Now we have a Muslim baker in dearbornistan MI that refused to make a gay wedding cake, told the guy to go to another baker down the street.

I saw that video, the baker looked like he could barely understand English.