The videographers must shoot the video

[Papageorgio]

Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.

Nice dodge btw, pussycat.

But, do they have the authority to make a business take on a job the business does not want to do?

See many "Whites Only" signs lately?

No but if I did, I would know to avoid those places that are intolerant of race.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.

Nice dodge btw, pussycat.

But, do they have the authority to make a business take on a job the business does not want to do?

See many "Whites Only" signs lately?

No but if I did, I would know to avoid those places that are intolerant of race.

So you support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not to mention state laws of a similar nature,

and then let the market decide?

 

[Papageorgio]

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

Businesses have no right to discriminate no matter how weasely they attempt it.

Yet they do all the time, funny how you don’t know that.

If there was a sign, at least I’d know not to support the establishment.

 

[TNHarley]

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

That didn't have anything to do with the "bible"

Yes it did. The bible justifies racism and segregation to those who want it to just like it justifies homophobia to those who look for it.

The good Christians at Piggy Park didn't want to serve blacks because the bible told them so.

Link please

 

[Papageorgio]

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yep, companies discriminate all the time, you think you are not getting hired because you are not qualified? You didn’t get the promotion because you weren’t qualified? That is what they can tell you but the real reason maybe discrimination, because of age, sex, religion, color, race or sexual orientation, they can just say they choose to go with this person because...

It happens every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

Businesses have no right to discriminate no matter how weasely they attempt it.

Yet they do all the time, funny how you don’t know that.

If there was a sign, at least I’d know not to support the establishment.

Yeah well, people drive over the speed limit all the time, that's not much of a case for ending speed limits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yep, companies discriminate all the time, you think you are not getting hired because you are not qualified? You didn’t get the promotion because you weren’t qualified? That is what they can tell you but the real reason maybe discrimination, because of age, sex, religion, color, race or sexual orientation, they can just say they choose to go with this person because...

It happens every day.

Companies lose discrimination cases all the time too.

 

[Papageorgio]

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

I agree that businesses shouldn’t discriminate, however if you knew a business and they only videotaped your wedding because they had to, would you really want to do business with them? Nice to your face and yet in reality hated you? You would actually want to support a business like that?

I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t do business with them. There is a restaurant that was in the news awhile back that wouldn’t serve anyone who supported Trump, stupid, but I would support a business that would hate another person so much as to not serve them because of politics.

 

[Papageorgio]

Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.

Nice dodge btw, pussycat.

But, do they have the authority to make a business take on a job the business does not want to do?

See many "Whites Only" signs lately?

No but if I did, I would know to avoid those places that are intolerant of race.

So you support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not to mention state laws of a similar nature,

and then let the market decide?

Did I say that? I said wouldn’t support a business that was ran by a racist. Many businesses are and you don’t know that. You would support such a business? Because I bet you have given money to a business that was owned by a racist, a homophobe, a sexist and on down the line, you just didn’t know it. Intolerance has no place in this country, yet it is unknowingly supported everyday.

 

[Papageorgio]

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yep, companies discriminate all the time, you think you are not getting hired because you are not qualified? You didn’t get the promotion because you weren’t qualified? That is what they can tell you but the real reason maybe discrimination, because of age, sex, religion, color, race or sexual orientation, they can just say they choose to go with this person because...

It happens every day.

Companies lose discrimination cases all the time too.

Not as often as it happens. Tough to prove discrimination.

 

[OldLady]

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

That didn't have anything to do with the "bible"

Well, the defendant claimed desegregation was strictly against his religion (he was a Baptist) but I couldn't find any argument for it in the piece that went to the SC, which seemed to be about who pays attorneys fees?
I know people used some of the Old Testament stuff to justify slavery, but I don't know anything about it. Maybe that was what he was alluding to.

 

[Papageorgio]

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

Businesses have no right to discriminate no matter how weasely they attempt it.

Yet they do all the time, funny how you don’t know that.

If there was a sign, at least I’d know not to support the establishment.

Yeah well, people drive over the speed limit all the time, that's not much of a case for ending speed limits.

I am not claiming it is right or the laws should change, I am saying it happens all the time and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it because it masked very well. It seems you want to stay ignorant to relieve yourself of social responsibility, not sure why.

 

[Papageorgio]

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

That didn't have anything to do with the "bible"

Well, the defendant claimed desegregation was strictly against his religion (he was a Baptist) but I couldn't find any argument for it in the piece that went to the SC, which seemed to be about who pays attorneys fees?
I know people used some of the Old Testament stuff to justify slavery, but I don't know anything about it. Maybe that was what he was alluding to.

People can justify anything if they want to. The sad part is using God to justify hate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

Businesses have no right to discriminate no matter how weasely they attempt it.

Yet they do all the time, funny how you don’t know that.

If there was a sign, at least I’d know not to support the establishment.

Yeah well, people drive over the speed limit all the time, that's not much of a case for ending speed limits.

I am not claiming it is right or the laws should change, I am saying it happens all the time and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it because it masked very well. It seems you want to stay ignorant to relieve yourself of social responsibility, not sure why.

My social responsibility to do what?

hashtag Babble Saturday lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.

Nice dodge btw, pussycat.

But, do they have the authority to make a business take on a job the business does not want to do?

See many "Whites Only" signs lately?

No but if I did, I would know to avoid those places that are intolerant of race.

So you support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not to mention state laws of a similar nature,

and then let the market decide?

Did I say that? I said wouldn’t support a business that was ran by a racist. Many businesses are and you don’t know that. You would support such a business? Because I bet you have given money to a business that was owned by a racist, a homophobe, a sexist and on down the line, you just didn’t know it. Intolerance has no place in this country, yet it is unknowingly supported everyday.

Okay so you support the case going against the photographers...

 

[Papageorgio]

But, do they have the authority to make a business take on a job the business does not want to do?

See many "Whites Only" signs lately?

No but if I did, I would know to avoid those places that are intolerant of race.

So you support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not to mention state laws of a similar nature,

and then let the market decide?

Did I say that? I said wouldn’t support a business that was ran by a racist. Many businesses are and you don’t know that. You would support such a business? Because I bet you have given money to a business that was owned by a racist, a homophobe, a sexist and on down the line, you just didn’t know it. Intolerance has no place in this country, yet it is unknowingly supported everyday.

Okay so you support the case going against the photographers...

I don’t really care. Why in the hell would I want to give a guy that hates me, money? I’d go to someplace where I know I’d get good service. Forcing a person to do something against there will means that their heart and their wanting to do a good job would be an issue.

If I’m getting married, I’d want the guys best effort. I wouldn’t want someone who didn’t care. You could sue about quality after the fact but that doesn’t change the fact the guy screwed up your wedding.

That is me, maybe you think having your wedding photos fucked up is okay and you could try to sue and maybe or maybe not win.

So have at it, it’s the principle right? Lol!

 

[Papageorgio]

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

Businesses have no right to discriminate no matter how weasely they attempt it.

Yet they do all the time, funny how you don’t know that.

If there was a sign, at least I’d know not to support the establishment.

Yeah well, people drive over the speed limit all the time, that's not much of a case for ending speed limits.

I am not claiming it is right or the laws should change, I am saying it happens all the time and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it because it masked very well. It seems you want to stay ignorant to relieve yourself of social responsibility, not sure why.

My social responsibility to do what?

hashtag Babble Saturday lol

To relieve your conscience, that is the only reason to want to give a guy that hates homosexuals money is by pretending not to know if they hate homosexuals or not.

Have at it, it’s a free country and you have a right to support people that hate gays.

 

[jc456]

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

But that's the thing - these people don't just want to refuse service - in fact, I don't think that's even the main point. They want to do it loudly and publicly.

They want to advertise to the world that they won't serve gay people.

again, you want to shit on their rights that's it. fk you too. IO'm honoring their right to be who they are, and not forced on them by left ideology that seems to think it owns the fking world. fk you all.

but, but, but, nope, that's it.

You seem to think you have every right in the world, but no one else does. With rights come responsibilities to be a good citizen. In this country, that means we don't discriminate against gays anymore.

I'm my own person and have the same rights as you. I can disagree and say I do, fk you