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

[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.

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.

No, it isn't the law. Every bigot is allowed to use the public streets, even libturd bigots like you. They already pay taxes, you Nazi asshole. Liberal scum have no conception of how a free country is supposed to work. Of course, when did a libturd ever claim to believe in freedom?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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 just put koshergrl in charge. Then when she does what she's said she thinks should be done, and people realize what a Nazi see you next tuesday she is, the whole movement will collapse.

 

[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.

No, it isn't the law. Every bigot is allowed to use the public streets, even libturd bigots like you. They already pay taxes, you Nazi asshole. Liberal scum have no conception of how a free country is supposed to work. Of course, when did a libturd ever claim to believe in freedom?

Kneadz moah Uhmbrayge, Cleetoos!