Federal judge orders Christian film-makers to make LGBT film

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

Correct, because white nationalists do not deserve such protections simply for being white nationalists. Sucks being on the losing side of history, eh? Mwahaha

Hypocrisy must be in your blood... lol

It's only hypocrisy , if there is equivalence. There isn't equivalence. You see it as equivalent, and I think we have all heard enough from you to know EXACTLY why that is.

 

[Rustic]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regatdless of what you or I believe.

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

Because of scarcity and geology, I imagine. But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if black people don't want to eat at the local KKK hangout . The hangout doesn't get to post a "whites only"sign. Let's all take a moment to weep for their poor, oppressed souls:

I for one would not want to eat at or get product/service is from a place that does not want to serve American Indians... I would just find another place.... no big deal. It must be a control freak thing

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

I disagree yet again. Free markets and free minds is a concept for the future. It has nothing to do with government imposed Jim Crow laws of the past.

Open your mind.

And I know that free markets sometimes require enfircement that only government can provide. The founding fathers knew this. Everyone knows this, even the most staunch economic conservative. I won't argue over this simple idea, because this was decided long ago as well.

Where we differ is to the extent, in this particular case. And, I believe this needs a nudge from government. You think it does not. I think you have all but acknowledged that there have been times when this is necessary, and also that now is not one of those times.

So, the question I would ask: why okay other times (race), but not now (gay)?

 

[Rustic]

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

I disagree yet again. Free markets and free minds is a concept for the future. It has nothing to do with government imposed Jim Crow laws of the past.

Open your mind.

And I know that free markets sometimes require enfircement that obly government can provide. The founding fathers knew this. Everyone knows this, even the most staunch economic conservative. Don't atgye against this simple idea, because this was decided long ago as well.

Where we differ is to the extent, in this particular case. And, I believe this needs a nudge from government. You think it does not. I think you have all but acknowledged that there have been times when this is necessary, and also that now is not one of those times.

So, the question I would ask: why okay other times (race), but not now (gay)?

Getting along is way overrated

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

The entire exercise is for the sole purpose of making a fair show in the flesh in the courtrhe videographers brought the suit

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regatdless of what you or I believe.

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

Because of scarcity and geology, I imagine. But that is irrelevant. It for an't matter if black people don't want to eat at the local KKK hangout . The hangout doesn't get to post a "whoites only"sign. Let's all take a moment to weep for their poor, oppressed souls:

That's an emotional argument, which isn't really an argument at all.

Let's stick to logic, reason and facts. What do you say?

It's not an emotional argument, it was directly on point. It directly spoke to your point about private businesses. No, even the private business KKK hangout does not get to post those signs. A Direct reponse to every point you are making, as well as those of the other poster. And you just sidestepped is by labeling it, "emotional". It's not "emotional", it's a hard earned fact of law , earned with arguments and blood. And you seem to think you have something brand new to say about it all...but you are only retreading old ground.

And now, the same thing is happening for gay people. So, make your argument : okay for race, not for gay. Or go balls deep and say okay for neither. Go on, let's hear it.

 

[Slyhunter]

And meanwhile, the real story.

A video recording company made money working weddings. They decided they didn't want to video any gay weddings, so they're pretending to be "film makers" instead of "paid wedding video recorders".

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

But they already discriminate, legally. Some film makers only do Jewish weddings. They won't do other types of weddings. Some will only do Catholic weddings. What is wrong with limiting what you yourself are willing to do for money?

 

[eflatminor]

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

I disagree yet again. Free markets and free minds is a concept for the future. It has nothing to do with government imposed Jim Crow laws of the past.

Open your mind.

And I know that free markets sometimes require enfircement that only government can provide. The founding fathers knew this. Everyone knows this, even the most staunch economic conservative. I won't argue over this simple idea, because this was decided long ago as well.

Where we differ is to the extent, in this particular case. And, I believe this needs a nudge from government. You think it does not. I think you have all but acknowledged that there have been times when this is necessary, and also that now is not one of those times.

So, the question I would ask: why okay other times (race), but not now (gay)?

If "everyone knows this" than surely you can put forth a cogent argument in support of the notion of imposing your will on adults engaging in consensual activity, and doing so by unleashing armed government agents. Sorry, but that's the reality of your ideas.

I say the future will find you immoral. Rather than saying that's just the way it is, I urge you to examine the morality of your position.

No idea why you bring up race and sexual preference. Neither are relevant to the importance of private property rights. If a gay man wants to have a gays-only club, good for him. If a Black man wants to limit his customers, that's his choice. Ironically, capitalism pretty much ensures that both scenarios are happy to take money from a straight guy, or a white guy that happens to like soul food.

Again, you may have the best intentions in the world, but if your tactics require armed governments agents enforcing compliance at the point of a gun, I say you should rethink the morality of your position.

 

[eflatminor]

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

The entire exercise is for the sole purpose of making a fair show in the flesh in the courtrhe videographers brought the suit

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regatdless of what you or I believe.

Why would anyone want services/goods from someone that doesn't want to supply them, it seems to me there would be quality issues... it must be a control thing.

Because of scarcity and geology, I imagine. But that is irrelevant. It for an't matter if black people don't want to eat at the local KKK hangout . The hangout doesn't get to post a "whoites only"sign. Let's all take a moment to weep for their poor, oppressed souls:

That's an emotional argument, which isn't really an argument at all.

Let's stick to logic, reason and facts. What do you say?

It's not an emotional argument, it was directly on point. It directly spoke to your point about private businesses. No, even the private business KKK hangout does not get to post those signs. A Direct reponse to every point you are making, as well as those of the other poster. And you just sidestepped is by labeling it, "emotional". It's not "emotional", it's a hard earned fact of law , earned with arguments and blood. And you seem to think you have something brand new to say about it all...but you are only retreading old ground.

And now, the same thing is happening for gay people. So, make your argument : okay for race, not for gay. Or go balls deep and say okay for neither. Go on, let's hear it.

You own private property, you can invite any one you like on to that property and exclude anyone else.

I'm a capitalist, so I'm inviting anyone with cash to spend.

Either way, my ideas are based in freedom and voluntary choice, whereas your ideas are based on involuntary compliance enforced by government agents. History suggest the latter is immoral. I agree with history.

 

[Rustic]

And meanwhile, the real story.

A video recording company made money working weddings. They decided they didn't want to video any gay weddings, so they're pretending to be "film makers" instead of "paid wedding video recorders".

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

But they already discriminate, legally. Some film makers only do Jewish weddings. They won't do other types of weddings. Some will only do Catholic weddings. What is wrong with limiting what you yourself are willing to do for money?

Political correctness has one absolute ingredient... hypocrisy

 

[Asclepias]

So why are web hosters allowed to refuse white nationalist groups like stormfront? THINK

Because they broke the rules dummy.

What rule is that.?

The idiot rule. The same reason they refused you.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

Correct, because white nationalists do not deserve such protections simply for being white nationalists. Sucks being on the losing side of history, eh? Mwahaha

What about child-molesting faggots?. Why do they deserve protection? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

Decided what.? That you can't refuse a customer for racial or political or religious reasons.? So why are web-hosters allowed to refuse stormfront?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Can't the ugly bits be subcontracted out?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Another liberal judge writes a law even though the constitution says only congress can do that.

Activist Dem judge rules LGBT mandate trumps 1st Amendment

sep 23 2017 A federal judge in Minnesota with a long history of Democratic Party activism has issued a ruling that effectively concludes the LGBT agenda trumps the First Amendment’s religious-rights protections.

John Tunheim, appointed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1995, ordered Wednesday that Christian videographers Carl and Angel Larsen, through their company, Telescope Media Group, must use their filmmaking talents to promote same-sex marriages if they produce films that celebrate marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Their lawyers announced immediately they will appeal the decision by Tunheim, who charged in his opinion that the Larsens’ faith-based objection to creating videos promoting same-sex relationships is “akin to a ‘White Applicants Only’ sign.”

If you support partisan politics, then you support this sort of thing. Don't come crying that it's unfair, the whole system is unfair, but you seem to prop it up when it goes your way.

 

[Muhammed]

Why didn't they just get someone who isn't disgusted by them to film the wedding?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

1st Amendment. You can't force people to do things against their religion.
It's like forcing a Muslim merchant to sell booze or a Jewish merchant to sell pork.
The Left Wing Bigot Judge will be over-ruled.

Steven Crowder proved in one of his YouTube videos that Muslim bakers can refuse to bake a cake for gay weddings with impunity.

 

[mamooth]

You bring up morality. Tell me, what is immoral? Allowing an ignorant shopkeeper to demonstrate his bias and thereby suffer the ramifications of capitalism?

The ramifications might be positive, as prejudice can be profitable. Jim Crow businesses did just fine. Capitalism often enables evil quite nicely.

Or, shall we send armed government agents to kick down doors, confiscate property, and throw into prison anyone whose personal convictions might not coincide with your view of society?

Understand. You can't criticize what I actually believe, so you made up a strawman. Typical libertarian.

Look throughout history for how that tends to work out. When your ideas of morality absolutely require involuntary enforcement by police officers, I would suggest you should rethink your idea of morality.

Being my view worked very well for the past 50 years, it's clear that my morality is fine, and that yours stinks. You are advocating harming people, and them hiding behind fantasy libertarian crap to justify it.

Results matter to morality. A drunk driver is still immoral even if he didn't intend to harm anyone, being that his harm was predictable. Your fantasy world would cause predictable harm, hence it is likewise immoral.

 

[mamooth]

So why are web-hosters allowed to refuse stormfront?

For the same reason they can refuse to allow porn. Offensive content.

They're not refusing based on race, sex, ethnicity or religion. They're refusing based on offensive content. If black people wanted to host stormfront, they'd be refused as well;.

 

[eflatminor]

You bring up morality. Tell me, what is immoral? Allowing an ignorant shopkeeper to demonstrate his bias and thereby suffer the ramifications of capitalism?

The ramifications might be positive, as prejudice can be profitable. Jim Crow businesses did just fine. Capitalism often enables evil quite nicely.

Or, shall we send armed government agents to kick down doors, confiscate property, and throw into prison anyone whose personal convictions might not coincide with your view of society?

Understand. You can't criticize what I actually believe, so you made up a strawman. Typical libertarian.

Look throughout history for how that tends to work out. When your ideas of morality absolutely require involuntary enforcement by police officers, I would suggest you should rethink your idea of morality.

Being my view worked very well for the past 50 years, it's clear that my morality is fine, and that yours stinks. You are advocating harming people, and them hiding behind fantasy libertarian crap to justify it.

Results matter to morality. A drunk driver is still immoral even if he didn't intend to harm anyone, being that his harm was predictable. Your fantasy world would cause predictable harm, hence it is likewise immoral.

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

Talk about predictable harm!

Lastly, you clearly misunderstand what Jim Crow was all about. Jim Crow was anti-capitalism! It wasn't business owners that segregated, it was local laws that REQUIRED them to do so. Again, I stand against any government, local or federal, meddling in private property. Post Jim Crow laws, could there still be an asshole shopkeeper out there? Sure, but capitalism will run him out of business quickly or at least relegate him to insignificance. No jack booted thugs required.

 

[mamooth]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.