What the SSM SCOTUS Ruling Actually Means.

[g5000]

Divorce is not bible-compliant. God makes it very, very clear in the Bible he is opposed to divorce, in both the New and Old Testaments. He let Moses talk him into allowing divorce in the case of adultery, but still made it clear he really didn't even like divorce for adultery.

Therefore, if one is publicly polishing their halo and claiming to be Bible-complaint, selling a wedding cake to someone who is getting married their second time is a total violation.

This is how we know those who want to deny wedding cakes to homosexuals are sanctimonious hypocrites. And God has a lot to say about those kind of people in the Bible.

 

[martybegan]

Again, systemic government mandated economic segregation does not equal a gay couple having to spend another 1/2 hour finding another baker.

I am sorry, Herr Homo. Zee State has made zee buying off cakes from zee Straight Only bakery strictly verboten to you.

Zee law is on zee side of zee bakery. NOW MOOF ALONG!!!

Now you are just going full retard.

 

[g5000]

Again, systemic government mandated economic segregation does not equal a gay couple having to spend another 1/2 hour finding another baker.

I am sorry, Herr Homo. Zee State has made zee buying off cakes from zee Straight Only bakery strictly verboten to you.

Zee law is on zee side of zee bakery. NOW MOOF ALONG!!!

Now you are just going full retard.

Nope. You have made it abundantly clear you want the State to mandate homos can be excluded from Straight Only bakeries, and you are seriously butt hurt the State hasn't backed segregation.

 

[Seawytch]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

So the government requires businesses to clearly state who they will or will not serve? Is that capitalism or government overreach? Where in that idea do you get government regulations out of business?

 

[martybegan]

Again, systemic government mandated economic segregation does not equal a gay couple having to spend another 1/2 hour finding another baker.

I am sorry, Herr Homo. Zee State has made zee buying off cakes from zee Straight Only bakery strictly verboten to you.

Zee law is on zee side of zee bakery. NOW MOOF ALONG!!!

Now you are just going full retard.

Nope. You have made it abundantly clear you want the State to mandate homos can be excluded from Straight Only bakeries, and you are seriously butt hurt the State hasn't backed segregation.

The State wouldn't be backing anything. What I don't want is government being able to force someone to participate in something they do not want to participate in with out an overwhelming compelling reason. Having to go to another baker would not be a compelling reason. Now if every bakery refused to serve gay people, THAT would be a compelling reason.

Most of the small amount of business that don't want to participate HAVE SAID they don't mind selling over the counter to gay people (Memories Pizza comes to mind) they just don't want to participate as a vendor at a Gay wedding.

 

[martybegan]

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

So the government requires businesses to clearly state who they will or will not serve? Is that capitalism or government overreach? Where in that idea do you get government regulations out of business?

Ever see a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign?

Having a minor sign on contract requirement, detailing who you are willing to serve is better than government being able to shut you down because your views don't fit the narrative.

 

[martybegan]

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

If you actually read my posts, true PA's, such as food stores, motels, anything involving services that are either necessary or time sensitive can be required to serve anyone who enters. A contracted service to provide a cake for a wedding is not necessary or time sensitive, and is not a true public accommodation.

 

[Seawytch]

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

If you actually read my posts, true PA's, such as food stores, motels, anything involving services that are either necessary or time sensitive can be required to serve anyone who enters. A contracted service to provide a cake for a wedding is not necessary or time sensitive, and is not a true public accommodation.

Okay, great...Rural gays, Muslim and Jews can shop and buy gas...just not cakes....making it unfair to the bigot that sells gas.

They still should have to put up their "whites only" signs. Don't want to give a bigot money he doesn't want.

 

[martybegan]

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

If you actually read my posts, true PA's, such as food stores, motels, anything involving services that are either necessary or time sensitive can be required to serve anyone who enters. A contracted service to provide a cake for a wedding is not necessary or time sensitive, and is not a true public accommodation.

Okay, great...Rural gays, Muslim and Jews can shop and buy gas...just not cakes....making it unfair to the bigot that sells gas.

They still should have to put up their "whites only" signs. Don't want to give a bigot money he doesn't want.

considering most gas stations are self serve, and the actual owner probably never interacts with said customers, you choose a poor example to try to do a "gotcha" post.

 

[Seawytch]

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

If you actually read my posts, true PA's, such as food stores, motels, anything involving services that are either necessary or time sensitive can be required to serve anyone who enters. A contracted service to provide a cake for a wedding is not necessary or time sensitive, and is not a true public accommodation.

Okay, great...Rural gays, Muslim and Jews can shop and buy gas...just not cakes....making it unfair to the bigot that sells gas.

They still should have to put up their "whites only" signs. Don't want to give a bigot money he doesn't want.

considering most gas stations are self serve, and the actual owner probably never interacts with said customers, you choose a poor example to try to do a "gotcha" post.

Not as piss poor as your deflection of it. Why does the baker get to be a bigot and the grocer doesn't?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

So the government requires businesses to clearly state who they will or will not serve? Is that capitalism or government overreach? Where in that idea do you get government regulations out of business?

Ever see a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign?

Having a minor sign on contract requirement, detailing who you are willing to serve is better than government being able to shut you down because your views don't fit the narrative.

Neither is better than just not being bigoted...

 

[bripat9643]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

If you own a business that caters to weddings, you will be forced to provide them with services. You will also be forced to let them live in your house if you advertise for a roommate. The queers have only just begun using government force to rub their lifestyle in everyone's else's face.

 

[Pop23]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Just curious

Is there another contract that you know of that limits participants to just two?

 

[martybegan]

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

So the government requires businesses to clearly state who they will or will not serve? Is that capitalism or government overreach? Where in that idea do you get government regulations out of business?

Ever see a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign?

Having a minor sign on contract requirement, detailing who you are willing to serve is better than government being able to shut you down because your views don't fit the narrative.

Neither is better than just not being bigoted...

That's not up to you, and not up to government. a government that can force people to change how they think or act on one thing can make them change how they act or think on anything. The government should be limited to act only in cases of compelling government interest, and isolated stores refusing to serve certain people does not meet that.

Now if a bunch of them got together and as a group decided to do it, or if a local government decided to enforce said refusals by law, THEN there is a problem, and government (or a higher level of government) has to step in and correct the situation.

 

[martybegan]

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

If you actually read my posts, true PA's, such as food stores, motels, anything involving services that are either necessary or time sensitive can be required to serve anyone who enters. A contracted service to provide a cake for a wedding is not necessary or time sensitive, and is not a true public accommodation.

Okay, great...Rural gays, Muslim and Jews can shop and buy gas...just not cakes....making it unfair to the bigot that sells gas.

They still should have to put up their "whites only" signs. Don't want to give a bigot money he doesn't want.

considering most gas stations are self serve, and the actual owner probably never interacts with said customers, you choose a poor example to try to do a "gotcha" post.

Not as piss poor as your deflection of it. Why does the baker get to be a bigot and the grocer doesn't?

Compelling government interest. Preventing people from getting necessities like food, or time sensitive services like hotels creates an actual harm, not a "harm" of someone having their feelings or self-esteem hurt.

Now in the case of a hotel, they should be able to deny using a room in the hotel for a planned event, like a wedding or even a conference, because of the lack of time sensitivity, but they should not be able to deny a room to stay in.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

So the government requires businesses to clearly state who they will or will not serve? Is that capitalism or government overreach? Where in that idea do you get government regulations out of business?

Ever see a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign?

Having a minor sign on contract requirement, detailing who you are willing to serve is better than government being able to shut you down because your views don't fit the narrative.

Neither is better than just not being bigoted...

That's not up to you, and not up to government. a government that can force people to change how they think or act on one thing can make them change how they act or think on anything. The government should be limited to act only in cases of compelling government interest, and isolated stores refusing to serve certain people does not meet that.

Now if a bunch of them got together and as a group decided to do it, or if a local government decided to enforce said refusals by law, THEN there is a problem, and government (or a higher level of government) has to step in and correct the situation.

I understand that and I know it shouldn't be left up to government to define how we think. But society is free to do so, and does. Opinions have changed over time regarding same sex marriage.

If businesses in say some rural Oklahoma area all decide to not serve gays, Muslims, atheists, and liberals and the local government and state government are all okay with it and even support it - perhaps not openly but they turn a smiling, blind eye... To me what you propose seems to open a door to oppression. Sounds like Mississippi Burning.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to make a bigot's desire to discriminate all negative and stuff.

This would be fine too.

So, rural gays, Muslims, Jews, etc...fuck them they can grow food, got it.

If you actually read my posts, true PA's, such as food stores, motels, anything involving services that are either necessary or time sensitive can be required to serve anyone who enters. A contracted service to provide a cake for a wedding is not necessary or time sensitive, and is not a true public accommodation.

Okay, great...Rural gays, Muslim and Jews can shop and buy gas...just not cakes....making it unfair to the bigot that sells gas.

They still should have to put up their "whites only" signs. Don't want to give a bigot money he doesn't want.

considering most gas stations are self serve, and the actual owner probably never interacts with said customers, you choose a poor example to try to do a "gotcha" post.

Not as piss poor as your deflection of it. Why does the baker get to be a bigot and the grocer doesn't?

Compelling government interest. Preventing people from getting necessities like food, or time sensitive services like hotels creates an actual harm, not a "harm" of someone having their feelings or self-esteem hurt.

Now in the case of a hotel, they should be able to deny using a room in the hotel for a planned event, like a wedding or even a conference, because of the lack of time sensitivity, but they should not be able to deny a room to stay in.

So your way IS unfair to the bigot grocer...screw his "religious freedom". Not discriminating is fair to all groups equally.