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

[SwimExpert]

Got anything to back that up?

Yeah. Hundreds of weddings across 10 years in the industry.

 

[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.

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.

I am being far more explicit than you are able to handle. The issue is what is the balance between religious freedom and the consumer's right to service. you want it to be all on the consumer's side, I want the government to have to work to figure out who it should ruin over hurt feelings.

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

 

[martybegan]

Got anything to back that up?

Yeah. Hundreds of weddings across 10 years in the industry.

So, no, you don't.

 

[SwimExpert]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

 

[martybegan]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

I'm voicing my opinion, nothing more or less. You seem to be one of those people who only think your own opinions are valid.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Why does this bakery get special rights? How about an answer.....

 

[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?

Why does this bakery get special rights? How about an answer.....

What's so special about it? Why does your butt hurt outweigh theirs?

 

[SwimExpert]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

I'm voicing my opinion, nothing more or less. You seem to be one of those people who only think your own opinions are valid.

You are positing your opinion as the basis you expect to guide constitutional application. Whenever a constitutional question arises, the judges will all have to come ask Marty.

 

[bodecea]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

No no no...remember...just his opinion, right?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Why does this bakery get special rights? How about an answer.....

What's so special about it? Why does your butt hurt outweigh theirs?

They get to have a business license and get to ignore the state laws they are supposed to abide by. So...why do they get the special rights to ignore what all other businesses have to follow?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

You speak about "gays" as if they are a cult. And so they are. Just so the reader is familiar with the term "*** hater"....it's one most often used by gays themselves to drum up sympathy for the "oppression" they feel from the courts...er...I mean people in Bible country. It's also synonymous with "anyone who has reasonable objections to the Church of LGBT."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

Jesus... do you lie awake at night dreaming up this drivel?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

You speak about "gays" as if they are a cult. And so they are. Just so the reader is familiar with the term "*** hater"....it's one most often used by gays themselves to drum up sympathy for the "oppression" they feel from the courts...er...I mean people in Bible country. It's also synonymous with "anyone who has reasonable objections to the Church of LGBT."

He's a bigot. It's what he does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right wingers and their fight for freedom to hate and discriminate.

I can smell the Sharia.

You and your fellow Communists are dedicated to stomping out rights once and for all. The party is all, the state is a function of the party.

 

[bodecea]

So...again...why do these bakers deserve special rights that no one else with an Oregon business license gets?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus... do you lie awake at night dreaming up this drivel?

Shitflinger?

Nah, he gets it off the Soros hate sites..

Remember, democrats are more like cockroaches than people. They are a nest with a single, central intelligence that controls the drones.

 

[namvet]

they'' be leaving in Nov with all the other ass lickers

 

[Uncensored2008]

So...again...why do these bakers deserve special rights that no one else with an Oregon business license gets?

Special rights, shit fer brains shortbus?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

You're oddly right though, those ARE special rights, and when they used to be respected, they made this a special nation. Sadly we have allowed you Bolsheviks to crush our civil rights.

But November is coming,

 

[martybegan]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

I'm voicing my opinion, nothing more or less. You seem to be one of those people who only think your own opinions are valid.

You are positing your opinion as the basis you expect to guide constitutional application. Whenever a constitutional question arises, the judges will all have to come ask Marty.

If you don't want to hear opinions you disagree with, then get the hell of message boards. or go to echo chambers like DU.

Seriously, when people like you go with the "he knows better than the experts, all hail X" line of debate, it means you have run out of actual counters and things to say.