Federal appeals court rules religious businesses can refuse same-sex weddings

[Bush92]

It’s funny that some right wingers right here on the USMB said that we no longer hate gay people. That’s a thing of the past. You got to quit saying we hate gay people because we don’t think that way anymore.

Saying Republicans don’t hate gay people is like saying Republicans aren’t racist.

Republicans don’t hate gay people and are not racist. Keep your homosexuality to the privacy of the boudoir and political correctness results in reverse racism such as the concept of “white privilege.”

keep your hypocrisy confined to the privacy of your own homes, right wingers.

What hypocrisy? Just stating the truth. We don’t need gay pride parades, I don’t want to have my grandkids see gay men (or any couple for that matter) French kiss in public. Liberals are the most racists people in our country due to the fact the define EVERYTHING based on race. Government has no place in telling private bakery who they can or cannot serve.

 

[danielpalos]

If you own a business you have the right to refuse service to who ever you want. You’re $$$ and investment. As a customer if you don’t like the owners attitude toward you then don’t frequent the establishment. This is NOT a civil rights issue for gays or anyone else. It’s very simple...common sense and liberty should take precedent over nanny state.

usually for disorderly conduct.

As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. --
From George Washington to Roman Catholics in America, c.15 March 1790

 

[dblack]

You can get caught up in semantics, I'm putting forth the segregated south that kept millions of people in poverty with fewer rights due to "the markets" will. Only the majority can afford to live in a libertarian style government.

That exactly backasswards. What kept millions of people in poverty in the South were Jim Crow laws. Laws. Government.

Again, for the third time. Show me an example of a libertarian country that works. I don't think it exists.

And for the third time I'll dismiss it. I realize this the recommended talking point to throw out there when libertarians are exposing the hypocrisy of the status quo, but let's take a look at it. This is the standard response from all reactionaries when they oppose change. If we'd listened to this kind of reasoning pretty much all progress would have been thwarted. So much for liberalism.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s funny that some right wingers right here on the USMB said that we no longer hate gay people. That’s a thing of the past. You got to quit saying we hate gay people because we don’t think that way anymore.

Saying Republicans don’t hate gay people is like saying Republicans aren’t racist.

Republicans don’t hate gay people and are not racist. Keep your homosexuality to the privacy of the boudoir and political correctness results in reverse racism such as the concept of “white privilege.”

keep your hypocrisy confined to the privacy of your own homes, right wingers.

What hypocrisy? Just stating the truth. We don’t need gay pride parades, I don’t want to have my grandkids see gay men (or any couple for that matter) French kiss in public. Liberals are the most racists people in our country due to the fact the define EVERYTHING based on race. Government has no place in telling private bakery who they can or cannot serve.

all i hear is hypocrites practicing the abomination of hypocrisy instead of Ten simple Commandments from a God, to eschew the Cost of Government.

 

[HappyJoy]

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

This is true. it is my opinion they ruled that way more out of practicality than actual following of our Constitution.

We all have opinions. But by the very design of the Constitution on what is considered constitutional this ship has sailed. Anti-discrimination laws ARE constitutional, period.

Says which court?.

None of course, but it is common sense. Logically speaking, more protection cannot be equal protection.

How is that logical? I mean, let's pretend we're not at an Ayn Rand booking reading club where you aren't talking to like minded people. What is too much?

Do you think banks have the right to not give loans to certain classes of people even though they would qualify? By legalizing discrimination do you not see the damage that causes?

 

[HappyJoy]

You can get caught up in semantics, I'm putting forth the segregated south that kept millions of people in poverty with fewer rights due to "the markets" will.

Times have changed.

They haven't changed enough. I've already provided this gem:

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

Only the majority can afford to live in a libertarian style government.

There is no majority in a libertarian style government, only the individual.

This is the naivete I love about libertarians. You assume the best of people when in the world history of mankind, with so much disaster, destruction and hatred towards others, leave it to a libertarian to come up with something approaching "we don't see race". Guess what? Not everyone is with you on that.

Again, for the third time. Show me an example of a libertarian country that works. I don't think it exists or ever will until the population is just a molten blob grey sameness.

There is none, somewhat for the same reason there is not a purely Socialistic country that works, human nature gets in the way

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

 

[HappyJoy]

You can get caught up in semantics, I'm putting forth the segregated south that kept millions of people in poverty with fewer rights due to "the markets" will. Only the majority can afford to live in a libertarian style government.

That exactly backasswards. What kept millions of people in poverty in the South were Jim Crow laws. Laws. Government.

You had Jim Crow laws supported by the markets. Local white businesses flourished in segregated society, there were no demands being made against the markets to change. Liberals and Civil Rights legislation on a federal level is what ended the segregated south...mostly.

Again, for the third time. Show me an example of a libertarian country that works. I don't think it exists.

And for the third time I'll dismiss it. I realize this the recommended talking point to throw out there when libertarians are exposing the hypocrisy of the status quo, but let's take a look at it. This is the standard response from all reactionaries when they oppose change. If we'd listened to this kind of reasoning pretty much all progress would have been thwarted. So much for liberalism.

Libertarianism isn't change, it's actually wanting to repeal laws meant to sustain civil rights. Its not new. A libertarian world would be full of racism run amok run by robber barons.

 

[bodecea]

The homos keep losing when their demands hit federal courts.

They always kept losing in referendums too. Even here in Communist California, Proposition 8 to eliminate the right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, was a statewide ballot proposition in California. In 2008 it won!! California voted against homo marriage. The courts immediately overturned it.

Homo marriage ONLY exists because of corrupt courts.

They used to say that about interacial marriage.

There was a Trump worshiper last week that said such marriages should be outlawed as well. And none of the other Trumpians disagreed.

It's starting to happen........And let's remember that legal inter-racial marriage ONLY exists because of the courts. And integration in schools ONLY exists because of the courts. I'm sure donnie's deplorables consider that corrupt.

We really can blame the right wing for the Cost of Government when all we really need is Ten simple Commandments from a God.

I thought the Old Testament was passe'.

 

[bodecea]

Remember you Lefties: Discrimination happens all the time that you don't give a **** about. The Asian community is notorious for discriminating in both hiring and housing renting. And what about black businesses that hire blacks. Where are the Lefties on those topics? Nowhere.

That's the thing. They pretend this is about equal rights, that what they want is for businesses to treat everyone equally. But that's not what these laws mandate. They merely target a few types of discrimination that are currently unpopular with the government (and its lobbyists). Everything else is fair game.

the truly Religious should be not for the profit of lucre, but for the profit of our immortal souls.

Yeah! All those big box religious leaders making millions are with you on that.....

 

[danielpalos]

Remember you Lefties: Discrimination happens all the time that you don't give a **** about. The Asian community is notorious for discriminating in both hiring and housing renting. And what about black businesses that hire blacks. Where are the Lefties on those topics? Nowhere.

That's the thing. They pretend this is about equal rights, that what they want is for businesses to treat everyone equally. But that's not what these laws mandate. They merely target a few types of discrimination that are currently unpopular with the government (and its lobbyists). Everything else is fair game.

the truly Religious should be not for the profit of lucre, but for the profit of our immortal souls.

Yeah! All those big box religious leaders making millions are with you on that.....

they are not the ones complaining in public accommodation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We all have opinions. But by the very design of the Constitution on what is considered constitutional this ship has sailed. Anti-discrimination laws ARE constitutional, period.

The courts are not flawless, they succumb to outside pressure like everyone else

How is that logical? I mean, let's pretend we're not at an Ayn Rand booking reading club where you aren't talking to like minded people. What is too much?

Do you think banks have the right to not give loans to certain classes of people even though they would qualify? By legalizing discrimination do you not see the damage that causes?

Logic seems to confuse you. Think back to your days of basic math, more cannot be equal.

If you have more oranges than me, then we do not have the equal number of oranges.

Protected classes have more protection, that is the whole point of having them. And more can never be equal

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

 

[HappyJoy]

We all have opinions. But by the very design of the Constitution on what is considered constitutional this ship has sailed. Anti-discrimination laws ARE constitutional, period.

The courts are not flawless, they succumb to outside pressure like everyone else

They aren't flawless but you said those laws weren't Constitutional. Since the courts have upheld them, they are by definition lawful and constitutional. Maybe you should have just kept it to you not liking the laws.

How is that logical? I mean, let's pretend we're not at an Ayn Rand booking reading club where you aren't talking to like minded people. What is too much?

Do you think banks have the right to not give loans to certain classes of people even though they would qualify? By legalizing discrimination do you not see the damage that causes?

Logic seems to confuse you. Think back to your days of basic math, more cannot be equal.

If you have more oranges than me, then we do not have the equal number of oranges.

Protected classes have more protection, that is the whole point of having them. And more can never be equal

We're not talking about oranges. We're talking about rights. Do you ever wonder why the vast number of libertarians are white? They aren't racist, they just wouldn't have to deal with the naive ugly underside of libertarianism.

 

[HappyJoy]

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We're not talking about oranges. We're talking about rights. Do you ever wonder why the vast number of libertarians are white? They aren't racist, they just wouldn't have to deal with the naive ugly underside of libertarianism.

Works the same with rights or oranges, if you have more of something you do not have equal.

 

[HappyJoy]

We're not talking about oranges. We're talking about rights. Do you ever wonder why the vast number of libertarians are white? They aren't racist, they just wouldn't have to deal with the naive ugly underside of libertarianism.

Works the same with rights or oranges, if you have more of something you do not have equal.

No, not being able to get a loan because of your skin color is entirely different than one less orange.

Having to always go 10 feet or a mile further is nothing like picking one less fruit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

 

[HappyJoy]

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.
EDIT: Actually it's Article one section 8 and the14th amendment

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

Just curious, how do you feel about child labor laws?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

 

[Lysistrata]

And gay couples will continue to marry. This will simply open up new business for others.

Fine..and leave Christians alone... anyone with a lick of sense sees the homos are targeting

You constant complainers never specify which Christians. Your fault. I've known plenty of LGBTs who are themselves Christian. One even taught Sunday School.

Constant complainers? You do realize you loons have been complaining for three fricken years...dumbass.

The "Christian" fundies have been complaining for decades and think that the whole nation should stop to cater to their demands. This is entirely unrealistic. Nobody is going to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of total strangers. I don't think that you stop what you're doing to accommodate anyone else's beliefs. Put down that pork chop and pray to Yahweh, G-d, and Allah.

Only the Religious should invoke Religion not the laity.

I don't think that there is any difference between the two. Moreover, the term "religious" could be applied to anyone who adheres to any of the world's faiths, which, themselves, seem to be divided into all sorts of groups that do nothing but squabble with each other. Just last week, the Catholics and the Protestants had a nice little riot in Glasgow, Scotland, complete with police in riot gear, police on horseback, helicopters, the works. Shi'a, Sunni, and Wahabi Muslims similarly have love fests, and the Israeli cops have occasionally had great times with ultra-orthodox Jewish sects.

Anyone who believes that their particular sect deserves a blank check from larger society is completely out of his or her mind.