First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[JoeB131]

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

Then they should have thought about that before they hurt someone's feelings.

PA laws were created and used to deal with incidents of actual harm, not just hurt feelings. The previous tests on constitutionality did not deal with the level of absurdity we are seeing now.

I would say the death threats the Cryer-Bowman family got from "Christians" (where's a Roman Lion when you need one?) after MR. Klein posted their names and addresses on line constituted actual harm.

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Or you just make the Bigots do what they promise to do.

 

[Dragonlady]

"First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred"

It’s remarkable the ignorance, hate, and stupidity packed into the above quoted lie.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the First Amendment; Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never recognized religion as an ‘excuse’ for not obeying the law.

Fact: Gay Americans availing themselves of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws do not manifest as ‘hate’ on the part of homosexuals; indeed, the hate manifests with those who seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than being gay, or to discriminate against them in public accommodations for the same baseless reason.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘disadvantage’ Christians; all business owners are subject to their state or local jurisdiction’s public accommodation law regardless the owner’s religion, including business owners free from faith, and all are expected to follow the law.

Government forcing citizens to do business with each other is an abomination of liberty justified nowhere in the Constitution

No one is forcing citizens to do business with one another. Those claiming to be Christians aren't forced to open a bakery, but if they choose to open one, they cannot deny service to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.

To this Christian, that's in keeping with Jesus instructions to "love one another as I have loved you.

Jesus himself was admonished for showing kindness and compassion to sinners, lepers, and adulterers and He rebuked those who spoke out against him for doing so saying. These so-called are judging others as unworthy. Something Jesus would never have done.

 

[kaz]

No one is forcing citizens to do business with one another. Those claiming to be Christians aren't forced to open a bakery

I stopped here on the basis of your mental retardation

 

[JoeB131]

No one is forcing citizens to do business with one another. Those claiming to be Christians aren't forced to open a bakery

I stopped here on the basis of your mental retardation

Yes, you usually chicken out when you are getting your ass kicked.

 

[Seawytch]

"First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred"

It’s remarkable the ignorance, hate, and stupidity packed into the above quoted lie.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the First Amendment; Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never recognized religion as an ‘excuse’ for not obeying the law.

Fact: Gay Americans availing themselves of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws do not manifest as ‘hate’ on the part of homosexuals; indeed, the hate manifests with those who seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law for no other reason than being gay, or to discriminate against them in public accommodations for the same baseless reason.

Fact: Public accommodations laws in no way ‘disadvantage’ Christians; all business owners are subject to their state or local jurisdiction’s public accommodation law regardless the owner’s religion, including business owners free from faith, and all are expected to follow the law.

Government forcing citizens to do business with each other is an abomination of liberty justified nowhere in the Constitution

No one is forcing citizens to do business with one another. Those claiming to be Christians aren't forced to open a bakery, but if they choose to open one, they cannot deny service to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.

To this Christian, that's in keeping with Jesus instructions to "love one another as I have loved you.

Jesus himself was admonished for showing kindness and compassion to sinners, lepers, and adulterers and He rebuked those who spoke out against him for doing so saying. These so-called are judging others as unworthy. Something Jesus would never have done.

Just one small correction to where you said; they cannot deny service to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.

I just have a qualifier to that statement..."In some locations" needs to be in front of it. Despite public opinion being in favor of adding LGBT individuals to Federal law, they aren't there.

Strong Support for Federal NonDiscrimination Protections

The survey also informed respondents that there is no federal law today that protects someone who is gay or transgender from discrimination in public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels and other businesses open to all the public. When asked if they would support such a law, 6 out of 10 (62%) Americans agreed, with 44% saying they “strongly support” a federal law, and, by contrast, only 14% saying they “strongly oppose” such a law.

In a related question, the survey found that 21% of Americans believe that LGBT people are protected from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in all 50 states, including 12% of LGBT people who share this misconception. However, there is no such federal law, and today there are only 22 states with workplace protections based on sexual orientation, and 19 states that include protections for gender identity.
​

Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People

 

[Dragonlady]

And in related news, we now have a Mississippi man who refused to rent to a biracial married couple on religious grounds.

Mississippi RV park owner evicts interracial couple

This sort of thing was inevitable after the support for religious discrimination against gays.

 

[martybegan]

I'm a small "l" libertarian, dipshit.

you're a small dick libertarian...

100% projecting. How about you stick to facts, mouth breather.

I am. The facts clearly showed that he violated the PA Laws in Oregon, and they paid a big old honking fine that their fellow bible-thumping mouth breathers bailed them out on. Their homophobic bakery is closed, and all is right in the world.

Save the "small penis" attempted jokes for the gun debates, dippy.

The PA laws were wrongly applied. a Contracted service is not a PA.

 

[martybegan]

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

Then they should have thought about that before they hurt someone's feelings.

PA laws were created and used to deal with incidents of actual harm, not just hurt feelings. The previous tests on constitutionality did not deal with the level of absurdity we are seeing now.

I would say the death threats the Cryer-Bowman family got from "Christians" (where's a Roman Lion when you need one?) after MR. Klein posted their names and addresses on line constituted actual harm.

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Or you just make the Bigots do what they promise to do.

hurt feelings are not harm, and government shouldn't be involved in this.

And if proven, that part, the threats, is a separate action unrelated to the PA claims.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

So when did people become entitled to cakes?

Gee...you're right. Let's shut down ALL the cake bakers.

Gee, that's a bit of a stretch....

 

[Dragonlady]

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

Then they should have thought about that before they hurt someone's feelings.

PA laws were created and used to deal with incidents of actual harm, not just hurt feelings. The previous tests on constitutionality did not deal with the level of absurdity we are seeing now.

I would say the death threats the Cryer-Bowman family got from "Christians" (where's a Roman Lion when you need one?) after MR. Klein posted their names and addresses on line constituted actual harm.

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Or you just make the Bigots do what they promise to do.

hurt feelings are not harm, and government shouldn't be involved in this.

And if proven, that part, the threats, is a separate action unrelated to the PA claims.

Have you read the judgement? The threats were the REASON for the judgement, not the refusal to bake the cake. The bakers published the names and addresses of the complainants on their FaceBook page. It's why the court directed that the bakers stop speaking about the case to the press.

The family, which was in the process of adopting two children, received death threats from the good "Christians" in the community. The threats put their adoption at risk since they could not guaranty the safety or security of the children they were adopting.

"Hurt feelings" as you call it, does do harm. When some citizens are perceived as "lesser" humans, or not deserving of respect or consideration, it has a very negative impact. It's why we don't allow bullying, in any form. It's why emotional abuse is grounds for law suits and divorce.

 

[martybegan]

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

Then they should have thought about that before they hurt someone's feelings.

PA laws were created and used to deal with incidents of actual harm, not just hurt feelings. The previous tests on constitutionality did not deal with the level of absurdity we are seeing now.

I would say the death threats the Cryer-Bowman family got from "Christians" (where's a Roman Lion when you need one?) after MR. Klein posted their names and addresses on line constituted actual harm.

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

Or you just make the Bigots do what they promise to do.

hurt feelings are not harm, and government shouldn't be involved in this.

And if proven, that part, the threats, is a separate action unrelated to the PA claims.

Have you read the judgement? The threats were the REASON for the judgement, not the refusal to bake the cake. The bakers published the names and addresses of the complainants on their FaceBook page. It's why the court directed that the bakers stop speaking about the case to the press.

The family, which was in the process of adopting two children, received death threats from the good "Christians" in the community. The threats put their adoption at risk since they could not guaranty the safety or security of the children they were adopting.

"Hurt feelings" as you call it, does do harm. When some citizens are perceived as "lesser" humans, or not deserving of respect or consideration, it has a very negative impact. It's why we don't allow bullying, in any form. It's why emotional abuse is grounds for law suits and divorce.

Everything flowed from the decision to not sell the cake.

And I guess you thought those death threats and such to the people at Memories Pizza were TERRIBLE, right?

Or did they deserve it because you disagree with them?

 

[Slade3200]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

 

[WorldWatcher]

The PA laws were wrongly applied. a Contracted service is not a PA.

Actually the Public Accommodation laws in Oregon (Sweetcakes), New Mexico (Elane Photogrpahy), and Colorado (Masterpice Cakes) were applied correctly the way the legislature wrote the laws and intended their application.

Just because you and I disagree with the law, does not mean that the application of the law in those cases was applied wrongly, yes in those states (and in most others) contract services ARE included in the PA laws.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The PA laws were wrongly applied. a Contracted service is not a PA.

Actually the Public Accommodation laws in Oregon (Sweetcakes), New Mexico (Elane Photogrpahy), and Colorado (Masterpice Cakes) were applied correctly the way the legislature wrote the laws and intended their application.

Just because you and I disagree with the law, does not mean that the application of the law in those cases was applied wrongly, yes in those states (and in most others) contract services ARE included in the PA laws.


>>>>

Explicitly, or just by interpretation?

 

[Dragonlady]

Everything flowed from the decision to not sell the cake.

And I guess you thought those death threats and such to the people at Memories Pizza were TERRIBLE, right?

Or did they deserve it because you disagree with them?

Anyone who makes a death threat against another person, should be criminally charged. Regardless of which side of this issue you're on.

OTOH, it appears that Memories Pizza made the public proclamation about serving a gay wedding as a publicity stunt because I don't know of anyone, gay or straight, who served pizza at their wedding reception. They hoped that the publicity from denying service to gays would boost their sales. Despite my cynicism over this tactic, death threats are never the answer.

 

[martybegan]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

 

[martybegan]

Everything flowed from the decision to not sell the cake.

And I guess you thought those death threats and such to the people at Memories Pizza were TERRIBLE, right?

Or did they deserve it because you disagree with them?

Anyone who makes a death threat against another person, should be criminally charged. Regardless of which side of this issue you're on.

OTOH, it appears that Memories Pizza made the public proclamation about serving a gay wedding as a publicity stunt because I don't know of anyone, gay or straight, who served pizza at their wedding reception. They hoped that the publicity from denying service to gays would boost their sales. Despite my cynicism over this tactic, death threats are never the answer.

They were asked a question by some reporter, and the answer was blasted all over the internet and other media.
Please show me some proof that it was a publicity stunt.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The PA laws were wrongly applied. a Contracted service is not a PA.

Actually the Public Accommodation laws in Oregon (Sweetcakes), New Mexico (Elane Photogrpahy), and Colorado (Masterpice Cakes) were applied correctly the way the legislature wrote the laws and intended their application.

Just because you and I disagree with the law, does not mean that the application of the law in those cases was applied wrongly, yes in those states (and in most others) contract services ARE included in the PA laws.


>>>>

Explicitly, or just by interpretation?

Explicitly.

The each specify full goods and services.


>>>>

 

[Slade3200]

There ya go Marty you can move to Mississippi with the other bigots and religious nutz and eat as much cake as you want

Find any proof from my previous posts that I am a bigot or a religious nut.

All of my arguments stem from a libertarian view of how government works, nothing more of less.

I don't know you well enough to claim you a bigot or religious nut however, from your posts and views on these issues you fall right in line with their agenda. You may justify it as libertarian but the fact is there is a problem with discrimination and inequality for LBGT, you deny that because you don't see substantial fiscal harm imposed on the "victims". To many, the act of discrimination constitutes harm. We are all responsible for molding the world we want to live in and in our democracy the majority shall rule. The majority is stating that they want equal rights for LGBT so that will eventually become law of the land.

I agree with the fact that certain service based businesses have the right to decide which jobs they take (depending on their industry) just like employers have a right to hire whomever they want... But as soon as there is obvious bigotry and discrimination I have no problem with dropping the hammer.

 

[martybegan]

The PA laws were wrongly applied. a Contracted service is not a PA.

Actually the Public Accommodation laws in Oregon (Sweetcakes), New Mexico (Elane Photogrpahy), and Colorado (Masterpice Cakes) were applied correctly the way the legislature wrote the laws and intended their application.

Just because you and I disagree with the law, does not mean that the application of the law in those cases was applied wrongly, yes in those states (and in most others) contract services ARE included in the PA laws.


>>>>

Explicitly, or just by interpretation?

Explicitly.

The each specify full goods and services.


>>>>

Then they are not really PA laws, but blanket commerce laws.