First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[Seawytch]

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

 

[martybegan]

Equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the baker.

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

 

[Seawytch]

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

 

[martybegan]

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

I'm still going to have better luck than you will regardless of whether you want to do away with them or simply alter them. Most people don't think you should be able to refuse service to gays, fire gays for being gay or kick people out of their homes for being gay...despite the fact that in half the states you can do just that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no confusion as to the Constitution or to the laws on these matters.

The point is that you don't agree but cannot adequately defend your point of view.

Denial of civil rights protections involve far more than 'hurt feelings.'

That would be like saying to a black customer, "We don't serve n^^^^^^ here. No hard feelings, it is not personal."

The great number of Americans will not permit that cap anymore.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

Just to clarify Marty. A couple of questions:

1. Re: Limiting Public Accommodation laws. What specifically would these limitations be in your view of what PA laws should be?


2. Please indicate how to measure "actual harm"?


3. Are you proposing special rights to be able to claim a religoius exemption under PA laws to providing full and equal goods and services so that a person that has animus against a group can't refuse full and equal goods and services but another that claims a religious animus can refuse service?


>>>>

 

[jknowgood]

That never happened. You just made it up.

Yeah it did

No, it did not. No gay couple went to a "Muslim Baker" and were refused service.

They have video from Michigan showing a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, but the bias media won't report on it.

Except that's not what the video you're referring to showed.

Righties Go Crazy Over Video Of Muslim Bakeries Refusing To Make A Cake For A Gay Wedding (VIDEO)

Many rightwing nitwits made fools of themselves recently when a Muslim bakery in Michigan refused to accommodate a gay patron, whining about a Christian bakery in Oregon being compelled to pay damages for doing the same thing, claiming a ‘double standard’ and ‘liberal bias.’

Had they bothered to research the law, however, they’d realize that unlike Oregon, Michigan’s public accommodations law has no provision for sexual orientation, where although the Muslim business’ treatment of the gay patron was bigoted and reprehensible, it wasn’t subject to a civil action as in Oregon.

Then why didn't you liberals get outraged like you did with chick fil a? I know because you will give Muslims a pass.

 

[jknowgood]

Yes the Muslim baker told the queer couple no and to go down the street. Nothing from liberals.
Christian baker says no and was fined out if business. Both true.

That never happened. You just made it up.

Yeah it did

No, it did not. No gay couple went to a "Muslim Baker" and were refused service.

They have video from Michigan showing a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, but the bias media won't report on it.

If nobody reported it then how did you hear about it?

Because I research things you dumb shit. Maybe one of your Muslim buddies will show you some love.

 

[jknowgood]

Yes the Muslim baker told the queer couple no and to go down the street. Nothing from liberals.
Christian baker says no and was fined out if business. Both true.

That never happened. You just made it up.

Yeah it did

No, it did not. No gay couple went to a "Muslim Baker" and were refused service.

They have video from Michigan showing a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, but the bias media won't report on it.

two things....Michigan doesn't protect sexual orientation in their PA laws....also, that's not what the video shows., no one refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

You've been had.....again.

Stick up for the Muslims. You will be the first to go. yeah!

 

[martybegan]

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

I'm still going to have better luck than you will regardless of whether you want to do away with them or simply alter them. Most people don't think you should be able to refuse service to gays, fire gays for being gay or kick people out of their homes for being gay...despite the fact that in half the states you can do just that.

Why are you adding "fire gays and kick gays out of homes"? Where have I ever stated that is my intent in all this?

What I want is someone to show me the actual harm suffered by people having to find another baker/photographer or florist (lol) for their wedding, and that doesn't include hurt feelings.

 

[martybegan]

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

Just to clarify Marty. A couple of questions:

1. Re: Limiting Public Accommodation laws. What specifically would these limitations be in your view of what PA laws should be?


2. Please indicate how to measure "actual harm"?


3. Are you proposing special rights to be able to claim a religoius exemption under PA laws to providing full and equal goods and services so that a person that has animus against a group can't refuse full and equal goods and services but another that claims a religious animus can refuse service?


>>>>

1. To me PA laws cover point of sale businesses, and businesses where people congregate in a non-invited manner. So a bowling alley is a PA, but a catering hall when used for a private event is not. a person walking into a bakery and buying an OTC the cake is covered by PA, but a person contracting said company to provide a cake for an event is not.

2. Harm is inability to easily find a similar service in a timely manner in this case. So if its one baker out of 100 there is no harm, if it is 70 bakers out of 100, there is harm, and government should feel free to step in.

3. I am proposing that religious objections be considered as part of any investigation into a denial of service, and that the government's burden is to prove some tangible harm (not hurt feelings) before they even think of using force to get the defending organization to comply.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. To me PA laws cover point of sale businesses, and businesses where people congregate in a non-invited manner. So a bowling alley is a PA, but a catering hall when used for a private event is not. a person walking into a bakery and buying an OTC the cake is covered by PA, but a person contracting said company to provide a cake for an event is not.

I'm not sure what a "non-invited" manner means.

So with your bowling alley example. A bowling alley can't refuse service to reject lane rental for characteristics defined in PA laws to an individual customer, but if that same bowling alley holds catered events then they can refuse service. I used to bowl quite a bit and it was not uncommon for bowling alleys to cater events with special packages. Some examples include private bowling leagues, birthday parties, anniversary parties, club parties, etc. A typical package reserved X number of lanes side-by-side and food service.

In you bakery example, a couple walks into a bakery and orders a wedding cake from the portfolio of wedding cakes that baker advertises in their book or via their web site - the order is for over the counter delivery. Would they be included in PA laws?

2. Harm is inability to easily find a similar service in a timely manner in this case. So if its one baker out of 100 there is no harm, if it is 70 bakers out of 100, there is harm, and government should feel free to step in.

If there are 30 bakers still performing the service out of 100, then what is the harm. Just go to one of the 30 bakers.

3. I am proposing that religious objections be considered as part of any investigation into a denial of service, and that the government's burden is to prove some tangible harm (not hurt feelings) before they even think of using force to get the defending organization to comply.

Why should religious objections be considered as part of any investigation over other moral objections that re not religious based? All this time those that oppose equal treatment for homosexuals have said they gays shouldn't have special rights, but now if someone claims a religious belief they get special rights?

So a _______ (insert religion here) business owner can refuse to provide full and equal service to homosexuals, but homosexuals are not required to provide full and equal service to _______ (insert religion here) who want to discriminate against them. That is the epitome of "special rights".

If _______ (insert religion here) can discriminate wouldn't equal treatment under the law mean that homosexuals should be able to reciprocate?


>>>>

 

[Slade3200]

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?

 

[bodecea]

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

Funny that Marty thinks that isn't happening.

 

[martybegan]

1. To me PA laws cover point of sale businesses, and businesses where people congregate in a non-invited manner. So a bowling alley is a PA, but a catering hall when used for a private event is not. a person walking into a bakery and buying an OTC the cake is covered by PA, but a person contracting said company to provide a cake for an event is not.

I'm not sure what a "non-invited" manner means.

So with your bowling alley example. A bowling alley can't refuse service to reject lane rental for characteristics defined in PA laws to an individual customer, but if that same bowling alley holds catered events then they can refuse service. I used to bowl quite a bit and it was not uncommon for bowling alleys to cater events with special packages. Some examples include private bowling leagues, birthday parties, anniversary parties, club parties, etc. A typical package reserved X number of lanes side-by-side and food service.

In you bakery example, a couple walks into a bakery and orders a wedding cake from the portfolio of wedding cakes that baker advertises in their book or via their web site - the order is for over the counter delivery. Would they be included in PA laws?

2. Harm is inability to easily find a similar service in a timely manner in this case. So if its one baker out of 100 there is no harm, if it is 70 bakers out of 100, there is harm, and government should feel free to step in.

If there are 30 bakers still performing the service out of 100, then what is the harm. Just go to one of the 30 bakers.

3. I am proposing that religious objections be considered as part of any investigation into a denial of service, and that the government's burden is to prove some tangible harm (not hurt feelings) before they even think of using force to get the defending organization to comply.

Why should religious objections be considered as part of any investigation over other moral objections that re not religious based? All this time those that oppose equal treatment for homosexuals have said they gays shouldn't have special rights, but now if someone claims a religious belief they get special rights?

So a _______ (insert religion here) business owner can refuse to provide full and equal service to homosexuals, but homosexuals are not required to provide full and equal service to _______ (insert religion here) who want to discriminate against them. That is the epitome of "special rights".

If _______ (insert religion here) can discriminate wouldn't equal treatment under the law mean that homosexuals should be able to reciprocate?


>>>>

1. A bowling alley, unless they have a separate isolated room for certain events, to me is always a public area. I agree finding the line is tricky with this issue, but the constitution wasn't put in place to make government's job easier, it's to make government's life harder.

A better example would be a hotel not being able to deny a room to anyone, but maybe being able to deny one of their ballrooms for an event they didn't want to host.

if 70 of 100 bakers don't want to do it, I would think there would have to be some coordination causing it, even some local government involvement. Again, the government doesn't get a pass here, they would have to figure out what is going on.

I would apply not just a religious standard to it, so if a homosexual wedding hall owner wanted to cater to gays exclusively as a business model, he would be able to. Again, my views are based on government only getting involved for some actual harm.

 

[martybegan]

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

So under that logic should we be able to go back to whites only restrooms as long as there's a bucket in the back for the blacks?

Well government wouldn't be able to do it in any event, as separate but equal/unequal was shut down, and I doubt any business would really want to go that route, so your point is pretty moot.

 

[martybegan]

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

Funny that Marty thinks that isn't happening.

No, your goal in all this is to get gay butthurt superior to christian butthurt.

 

[Seawytch]

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

We are. We're passing laws protecting the LGBT community (which, by the way, are supported by a majority of Americans). I guarantee you I'll have better luck with my support of anti discrimination laws to protect gays than you will be getting rid of them.

Who wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws entirely? What I want is PA's to actually be PA's, not "every transaction under the sun, and such laws to have to take into account the rights of the other side, in particular 1st amendment rights. An actual harm has to be part of the discrimination in question, not just hurt feelings, because government should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

I'm still going to have better luck than you will regardless of whether you want to do away with them or simply alter them. Most people don't think you should be able to refuse service to gays, fire gays for being gay or kick people out of their homes for being gay...despite the fact that in half the states you can do just that.

Why are you adding "fire gays and kick gays out of homes"? Where have I ever stated that is my intent in all this?

What I want is someone to show me the actual harm suffered by people having to find another baker/photographer or florist (lol) for their wedding, and that doesn't include hurt feelings.

I never ascribed those to you, merely pointed out the consequences of s state not having LGBT protections.

Where is the harm in an interracial couple having to find another "baker/photographer or florist (lol) for their wedding, and that doesn't include hurt feelings."

 

[Seawytch]

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

Funny that Marty thinks that isn't happening.

No, your goal in all this is to get gay butthurt superior to christian butthurt.

Not superior, equal.

Either I get to discriminate against the Christian or he doesn't get to against me.