Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[ScreamingEagle]

There is no law prohibiting it. Christian students are free to pray whenever and wherever they like. If they were to actually follow the teachings of Jesus and pray in private like he directs and they demanded a private prayer room to do it in, the school would accommodate their needs equally.

so you think the schools should 'accomodate' and provide a prayer room for each religion that requests one...?

gosh....i thought you lefties declared that public schools should be secular....

They still would be. Praying in private is not the same as preaching in public.

yet you are still allowing SECULAR GOVERNMENT PROPERTY to be used for RELIGIOUS PURPOSES....is not this against the law....?

in fact couldn't a case could be made that the government was 'establishing' religion......? cases have been made for a lot less....or does 'public accomodation' overule 'separation of church and state'....?

(i love using lefties own arguments against them.....)

 

[The Rabbi]

Uh...no. But thanks for showing what you DON'T know.

Tell us all about your extensive knowledge as a Christian.

My mistake...I saw the Muslim part....not the Christian part...you are correct about Christians praying everytime they want to.

Protestant Christians seem not to have a fixed time for prayer, unlike Jews, Muslims, and more traditional Christians.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Tell us all about your extensive knowledge as a Christian.

My mistake...I saw the Muslim part....not the Christian part...you are correct about Christians praying everytime they want to.

Protestant Christians seem not to have a fixed time for prayer, unlike Jews, Muslims, and more traditional Christians.

since the Muslims get 'public accomodation' to say their prayers.....i think Christian school kids with parental approval should say prayers/read the Bible together every morning....this would probably include just about every kid in the schools...

i'm starting to like this accomodation stuff.....

 

[earlycuyler]

The 1st violates religious neutrality, the 2nd does not. If a Christian said they needed a prayer room to pray in private like Jesus told them to, and demanded one, the school would have to accommodate them too. There is no special treatment going on.

thanks for making the case for Christian prayer in public schools....

now all Christians have to do is identify which rooms will be their 'prayer rooms' at certain times (which will take up lots of rooms since there are lots of Christians)....since you believe in 'accomodation' for all religions (including sexual identity)...

There is no law prohibiting it. Christian students are free to pray whenever and wherever they like. If they were to actually follow the teachings of Jesus and pray in private like he directs and they demanded a private prayer room to do it in, the school would accommodate their needs equally.

Again, don't quote what you don't know. You only confirm your ignorance of what you quote.

 

[Gadawg73]

I agree overall. In most cases, you probably want a vendor who is going to be okay with what you are doing.

But the weight of the law should be on the side of the couples.

Imagine this scenario. You hire a photographer for the wedding, who didn't know that when Pat was marrying Sally, they were both chicks. He stomps out of the wedding, and all you have to remember that special day with are dozens of badly focused IPhone pics on Facebook.

Then sue the photographer in civil court for taking the assignment and failing to fulfill his contract.
And win. The weight of the law is already there in that area.

There is a photographer in my art group. He refuses to perform services for same sex weddings. Since he adjusted his business practices to insulate himself from lawsuits, he doesn't have to. Of course Pat and Sally can't waltz into his business and hire him either. He's made a change in the way he does business. In the way he advertises and in what services he offers.

I have been a private detective for 34 years, licensed since 1982 because they passed a law requiring that. For 34 years my practice has been 90% litigation of all forms, over 3000 civil cases and no telling how many calendar calls for the civil trial calendar. I would say 25 of them a year with over 40 cases on the civil calendar.
I would say I have seen about 1000 civil cases a year on the calendar AND NOT ONE of what you claim.
NOT ONCE have I ever seen a case where a gay person sued a photographer OR ANYONE for not performing a service because they were gay.
Not once. Ever.
And PLEASE give us the name of the insurance company that sells a policy to insure businesses that refuse to give service to gay folks and may get sued as a result of it.
Your Bull Shit meter has blown off the chart.

 

[Gadawg73]

Myth: Christians can not pray in the public schools.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then sue the photographer in civil court for taking the assignment and failing to fulfill his contract.
And win. The weight of the law is already there in that area.

There is a photographer in my art group. He refuses to perform services for same sex weddings. Since he adjusted his business practices to insulate himself from lawsuits, he doesn't have to. Of course Pat and Sally can't waltz into his business and hire him either. He's made a change in the way he does business. In the way he advertises and in what services he offers.

I have been a private detective for 34 years, licensed since 1982 because they passed a law requiring that. For 34 years my practice has been 90% litigation of all forms, over 3000 civil cases and no telling how many calendar calls for the civil trial calendar. I would say 25 of them a year with over 40 cases on the civil calendar.
I would say I have seen about 1000 civil cases a year on the calendar AND NOT ONE of what you claim.
NOT ONCE have I ever seen a case where a gay person sued a photographer OR ANYONE for not performing a service because they were gay.
Not once. Ever.
And PLEASE give us the name of the insurance company that sells a policy to insure businesses that refuse to give service to gay folks and may get sued as a result of it.
Your Bull Shit meter has blown off the chart.

If you look it up you will find photographers, bakers and florists sued and investigated for refusing to perform for gays. A bakery in Oregon was investigated by the state attorney genera for refusing to bake a wedding cake. While you may not have heard of such actions that does not mean they don't happen.

 

[Gadawg73]

There is a photographer in my art group. He refuses to perform services for same sex weddings. Since he adjusted his business practices to insulate himself from lawsuits, he doesn't have to. Of course Pat and Sally can't waltz into his business and hire him either. He's made a change in the way he does business. In the way he advertises and in what services he offers.

I have been a private detective for 34 years, licensed since 1982 because they passed a law requiring that. For 34 years my practice has been 90% litigation of all forms, over 3000 civil cases and no telling how many calendar calls for the civil trial calendar. I would say 25 of them a year with over 40 cases on the civil calendar.
I would say I have seen about 1000 civil cases a year on the calendar AND NOT ONE of what you claim.
NOT ONCE have I ever seen a case where a gay person sued a photographer OR ANYONE for not performing a service because they were gay.
Not once. Ever.
And PLEASE give us the name of the insurance company that sells a policy to insure businesses that refuse to give service to gay folks and may get sued as a result of it.
Your Bull Shit meter has blown off the chart.

If you look it up you will find photographers, bakers and florists sued and investigated for refusing to perform for gays. A bakery in Oregon was investigated by the state attorney genera for refusing to bake a wedding cake. While you may not have heard of such actions that does not mean they don't happen.

Wrong, you need to do your homework.
THE STATE brought suit through the Attorney Generals office against that business and all such cases.
NOT THE CONSUMER. They have no standing in civil court.
Consumer protection law already in place.
Gay marriage changes nothing.
Next.

 

[Katzndogz]

On the first page the initial post concrrned Bob Schieffer's surprise that so many people had been sued fot refusing service. I'm really not all that surprised that you don't know either. I can't do it now but if no one else catches this and educates you, I'll do it tomorrow.

 

[Gadawg73]

On the first page the initial post concrrned Bob Schieffer's surprise that so many people had been sued fot refusing service. I'm really not all that surprised that you don't know either. I can't do it now but if no one else catches this and educates you, I'll do it tomorrow.

Well you can't always believe what you see on the internet.
I am always here to sort out the fact and fiction.

 

[Nosmo King]

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

The baker delivers the cake to a venue, but he doesn't stick around and toast the happy couple! A florist delivers arrangements to a funeral home, but he doesn't crawl in a casket. Delivering a wedding cake to the country club on Saturday afternoon is not the same as being "compelled" to go to a wedding.

You go to a lunch counter and there is an understanding that the cooking and the consumption will happen on the premises. You order a six tiered wedding cake and you expect it will be delivered, but you don't expect a gift of a toaster oven from the baker.

Guests are invited, vendors are not.

Only progressives are stupid enough to think forcing someone to do something is a smart idea.

And only Conservatives would wrap themselves up in something like restraint of trade or personal rights (just like state's rights back in the 1950s and 60s) in order to rationalize bigotry and stupidity.

 

[martybegan]

The baker delivers the cake to a venue, but he doesn't stick around and toast the happy couple! A florist delivers arrangements to a funeral home, but he doesn't crawl in a casket. Delivering a wedding cake to the country club on Saturday afternoon is not the same as being "compelled" to go to a wedding.

You go to a lunch counter and there is an understanding that the cooking and the consumption will happen on the premises. You order a six tiered wedding cake and you expect it will be delivered, but you don't expect a gift of a toaster oven from the baker.

Guests are invited, vendors are not.

Only progressives are stupid enough to think forcing someone to do something is a smart idea.

And only Conservatives would wrap themselves up in something like restraint of trade or personal rights (just like state's rights back in the 1950s and 60s) in order to rationalize bigotry and stupidity.

States rights would imply the government's ability to discriminate, which is clearly unconsitutional. What is wrong is forcing a private citizen who has no governmental power whatsoever to work on something against thier moral compass, whatever those morals are based on.

 

[KevinWestern]

there's also a difference between hetero sexual and homosexual perverts

And that difference would be?

One is legal.

It's not illegal to be gay in this country. However, I there are certain African countries that subscribe to that philosophy (perhaps a good spot for your vacation home?).

 

[thanatos144]

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

My mob rule referendums?

This is the same guy that supports states writing laws that force people to go to weddings, and then denies that he supports making slaves of people.

Tell you what, I really don't have time to pull up every post where you throw individual liberty under the bus, so I will just pull up one example to prove that you are lying.

Wrong, you need to do your homework.
THE STATE brought suit through the Attorney Generals office against that business and all such cases.
NOT THE CONSUMER. They have no standing in civil court.
Consumer protection law already in place.
Gay marriage changes nothing.
Next.

You are a fucking liar and a bad one at that.
I oppose forcing anyone to go to weddings.
I support the right of the church in this case to get rid of anyone they want to as a member. If this church wants to deny gays outright I fully support that.
They would not be Christian church but fine with me.
How many laws out there that now prohibit you from denying a black or anyone else to buy your house if it is for sale?
How many laws out there that prohibit you from firing older workers, not hiring blacks, handicapped, gays, midgets, blue eyed people, people that are bald, etc.
Called equal protection under the law.
Same with renting buildings and anything and everything else where dollars are exchanged.
Lester Maddox ring a bell?
YOU selectively want to EXCLUDE gay folks from all those laws as bakers, florists and others that are IN PRIVATE business have to abide by all the other laws so they now have to abide include gay folks in those laws.
If you sell wedding cakes to the public there is sound footing that you must also sell it to EVERYONE.

No one should be forced to be party to perversion

 

[Nosmo King]

Only progressives are stupid enough to think forcing someone to do something is a smart idea.

And only Conservatives would wrap themselves up in something like restraint of trade or personal rights (just like state's rights back in the 1950s and 60s) in order to rationalize bigotry and stupidity.

States rights would imply the government's ability to discriminate, which is clearly unconsitutional. What is wrong is forcing a private citizen who has no governmental power whatsoever to work on something against thier moral compass, whatever those morals are based on.

You ask this as if you owned a Woolworth lunch counter in Mississippi in 1960. What's wrong with Woolworth's discriminating against African American customers?

That discrimination is analogous to the bigotry and discrimination against same sex couples. That brand of commercial bigotry creates second class citizens of the discriminated.

So unless you're comfortable with trashing e pluribis unum because some of the pluribus runs counter to your warped immoral compass (what gall calling discrimination counter to a MORAL compass!) you should realize the damage such hate creates.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who chooses what are exactly morals and what aren't?
Government, churches, who?
How long did we hear that interracial marriage was immoral?
That drinking was immoral?
That women wearing bikinis was immoral.
Playing cards was immoral?

All the while these folks smoke and judge other people.
Treating other citizens different and as second class citizens because they are gay is as immoral as it gets.

 

[Rozman]

I think it's a just a matter of time when non gays when asked if they are gay and answer that they are not will have to prove it or be fined.

Or better yet when then they are asked how do you know if you are not gay if you never tried it.
Then non gays will have to provide an affidavit showing they tried it and didn't like it.

 

[Rozman]

Of course Democrats will get a waiver from this....
Just like they are getting waivers in huge numbers to avoid Obama Care.

 

[Katzndogz]

As forcing businesses to perform services for gays based on their sexuality is a form of slavery, we might well see the day when refusing the advances of a homosexual is considered homophobic harassment.

 

[Gadawg73]

As forcing businesses to perform services for gays based on their sexuality is a form of slavery, we might well see the day when refusing the advances of a homosexual is considered homophobic harassment.

Yes we are all slaves now as we have to allow black folk to ride in the front of the bus.
It is just terrible.
And they were right when they told us the next thing that would happen is they were coming to get our white women.
Next thing you know they will demand we sell them wedding cakes.