Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[martybegan]

The point is that when you get into punishing crap that a lot of people don't think should be punished, especially when the only outcome is hurt feelings, you have to re-think why you are doing this in the first place.

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

Why would they want to be served by people that detest their way of life?

and I had my wedding 5 towns over from where I live, it's called cars.

 

[SwimExpert]

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

it does answer it. pretty explicitly. The key is "what is the actual harm"?

And hurt feelings are not harm.

Right. So, instead of addressing my question, you ignore it and pose an alternate question. And that is what you think suffices for an answer. Okay then. Clearly, you can't answer the question.

I gave you a concrete response with regards to the "limit" with the hotel example. Are you dense?

No, what you gave was a meaningless response which still boils down to your personal preference. Who is to say what is "actual harm"? I say that there is no "actual harm" in denying a hotel room on the night of.

 

[martybegan]

When making a person butt hurt is fined over $100k, it is the government telling them they can't. Stop trying to hide that fact from yourself.

And thank you for making my point that this is nothing more than one person's butt hurt over another's, nothing more.

I think the fine is excessive for the violation

But they were aware of the consequences and chose to violate the law anyway. That is the way things are with martyrs

It has nothing to do with "butt hurt" and everything to do with the right to not be discriminated against

Which is countered by the right to free exercise of religion. and if you go by strict constitutional rights, only the government is really banned from discriminating, not private people.

You guys use commerce as an end run to implement the Thought Police.

They are free to exercise their religion...their business is not

Religions contain all kinds of bizarre requirements and doctrines. Just because you adhere to one of those religions does not mean you can push it on the public

Why? Why does the right of gay people to not be butt hurt automatically tump the right of the bakers to not be butt hurt?

And pushing it on the public is a stretch here. They are not out there forcing you to tithe, or going out to stop said wedding from occurring.

Because gays have a right to not be discriminated against and business cannot use religion as a justification to discriminate

Why not? again, if it is down to butthurt why is the right to not be discriminated against (not an enumerated right unless it is government attempting to discriminate) more valid that the right to free exercise of religion (an enumerated right, and not one explicitly denied due to trying to sell something)?

 

[martybegan]

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

That doesn't actually answer the question I posed. In fact, it ignores it entirely.

it does answer it. pretty explicitly. The key is "what is the actual harm"?

And hurt feelings are not harm.

Right. So, instead of addressing my question, you ignore it and pose an alternate question. And that is what you think suffices for an answer. Okay then. Clearly, you can't answer the question.

I gave you a concrete response with regards to the "limit" with the hotel example. Are you dense?

No, what you gave was a meaningless response which still boils down to your personal preference. Who is to say what is "actual harm"? I say that there is no "actual harm" in denying a hotel room on the night of.

After a long day of travel, being denied lodging and having to go somewhere else could lead to accidents. There is actual harm in denying a transaction like this. Plus here there is actually a connection to protecting commerce, i.e. the free ability to travel.

Nothing to compare to a contracted ahead of time service that can easily be done by someone else.

 

[dblack]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....is no longer allowed in this country

That's exactly the problem. It's a bad precedent. That right should be restored. No one should be forced by law to serve someone else.

Thank you Jim Crow

Jim Crow refers to using laws to force people to act against their preferences (eg. PA laws). I'm arguing for the opposite.

Actually, you are advocating returning to Jim Crow social norms

We don't serve n*ggers here

No, actually, I am not. You're making shit up because your argument is weak. Jim Crow laws were an application of the kind of government you advocate.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

I consider this a form of 'white slavery'. I thought Obama was against slavery.

 

[SwimExpert]

After a long day of travel, being denied lodging and having to go somewhere else could lead to accidents.

Get a taxi. And who said anything about a long day's travel? And how would it be any different than refusing service to a group who stumble in drunk as a skunk?

There is actual harm in denying a transaction like this. Plus here there is actually a connection to protecting commerce, i.e. the free ability to travel.

So, protecting the potential of commerce is an actual harm? That is weak. Pathetically weak. You're just making up your own personal assessments of the extent of a harm. It all boils down to the fact that you personally don't like the effect of the Oregon law, so you deem it an acceptable scenario to use the cloak of religious belief to nullify it. The really bizarre thing is that the tangled web of rationale you are attempting to weave relies on a complexity of subjective value judgements, and you somehow think that better than singular objective standard currently in use.

 

[rightwinger]

That is contradictory to Jesus' teachings.

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

Why would they want to be served by people that detest their way of life?

and I had my wedding 5 towns over from where I live, it's called cars.

Why have a wedding next to a truck stop? Why not expect the best
We saw the accommodations offered to blacks as an alternative. Outhouses instead of flush toilets. Water pump instead of running water. Eating in back of a kitchen instead of the dining room

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

 

[rightwinger]

I consider this a form of 'white slavery'. I thought Obama was against slavery.

Tell us more about that plantation

Conservatives are so good at analogies

 

[martybegan]

After a long day of travel, being denied lodging and having to go somewhere else could lead to accidents.

Get a taxi. And who said anything about a long day's travel? And how would it be any different than refusing service to a group who stumble in drunk as a skunk?

There is actual harm in denying a transaction like this. Plus here there is actually a connection to protecting commerce, i.e. the free ability to travel.

So, protecting the potential of commerce is an actual harm? That is weak. Pathetically weak. You're just making up your own personal assessments of the extent of a harm. It all boils down to the fact that you personally don't like the effect of the Oregon law, so you deem it an acceptable scenario to use the cloak of religious belief to nullify it. The really bizarre thing is that the tangled web of rationale you are attempting to weave relies on a complexity of subjective value judgements, and you somehow think that better than singular objective standard currently in use.

because the drunk people may actually cause harm to your establishment.

Again, its all about harm.

 

[bodecea]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

I consider this a form of 'white slavery'. I thought Obama was against slavery.

Tell us more about that plantation

Conservatives are so good at analogies

They were usually started by some southern democrat who hated Lincoln....

 

[martybegan]

According to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide how others interpret that, and in cases of butt hurt on butt hurt, government shouldn't either.

So what is the limit? If "I have a religious belief" is such a powerful shield from compliance with inherently nonreligious laws, how far is it allowed to go? And who gets to decide what is too far? Because at the end of the day, your position boils down to nothing more than you having a personal disapproval with a law. You want this to be an acceptable time when "religious belief" can nullify a law.

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

Why would they want to be served by people that detest their way of life?

and I had my wedding 5 towns over from where I live, it's called cars.

Why have a wedding next to a truck stop? Why not expect the best
We saw the accommodations offered to blacks as an alternative. Outhouses instead of flush toilets. Water pump instead of running water. Eating in back of a kitchen instead of the dining room

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry, your analogy about 2nd class services fails on its merit.

You are the one going all argumentum ad abusrdum, not me. You are the one going all or nothing.

You are the one that feels the need to force your views on others using the government gun barrel.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

Because hetrosexuals deserve special rights. Do you have any other questions?

 

[martybegan]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

Why are so many saying one groups butthurt is more equal than another group's butthurt?

 

[bodecea]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

Because hetrosexuals deserve special rights. Do you have any other questions?

Apparently.....but actually, I'm not surprised at your response.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

Because hetrosexuals deserve special rights. Do you have any other questions?

Apparently.....but actually, I'm not surprised at your response.

Who cares.....

 

[SwimExpert]

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry

This is actually a myth. Gay people are not anymore prevalent in the wedding industry than they are in the general population. In fact, there is only one wedding pro I think of off the top of my head who I know for certain is gay. And I only met her once.

 

[martybegan]

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry

This is actually a myth. Gay people are not anymore prevalent in the wedding industry than they are in the general population. In fact, there is only one wedding pro I think of off the top of my head who I know for certain is gay. And I only met her once.

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry

This is actually a myth. Gay people are not anymore prevalent in the wedding industry than they are in the general population. In fact, there is only one wedding pro I think of off the top of my head who I know for certain is gay. And I only met her once.

Got anything to back that up?

My mother worked for a florist when I was young, and that industry definitely has gay men in it higher than their percentage of the population.

 

[SwimExpert]

After a long day of travel, being denied lodging and having to go somewhere else could lead to accidents.

Get a taxi. And who said anything about a long day's travel? And how would it be any different than refusing service to a group who stumble in drunk as a skunk?

There is actual harm in denying a transaction like this. Plus here there is actually a connection to protecting commerce, i.e. the free ability to travel.

So, protecting the potential of commerce is an actual harm? That is weak. Pathetically weak. You're just making up your own personal assessments of the extent of a harm. It all boils down to the fact that you personally don't like the effect of the Oregon law, so you deem it an acceptable scenario to use the cloak of religious belief to nullify it. The really bizarre thing is that the tangled web of rationale you are attempting to weave relies on a complexity of subjective value judgements, and you somehow think that better than singular objective standard currently in use.

because the drunk people may actually cause harm to your establishment.

Again, its all about harm.

Who's harm? Your harm? The businesses' harm? Actual harm? Potential harm?

You are saying nothing. The more you speak the less you say. You are contradicting yourself, running circles around a vain effort to preserve jabberwocky as if it were wisdom. You want to be the only person who gets to decide whether a person's religious belief is sufficient for first amendment protection.