Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[PaintMyHouse]

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities.

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

 

[dblack]

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities.

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities.

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

Anyone who took a hit for that would have no problems suing, and winning, unless a perfectly valid business reason, credit history works, can be found for the denial of service, or product, and it better be universal. If the white guy with bad credit gets a car but not the black guy, now you have a problem. That's redlining, and it's illegal.

 

[dblack]

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities.

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

Anyone who took a hit for that would have no problems suing, and winning, unless a perfectly valid business reason.

That's simply not true. Contact an attorney. People are turned away routinely for the above reasons, and many, many more.

I really don't get it. You're usually pretty enthused about in-your-face, authoritarian government. Why's it so hard to admit these laws are going after bigots?

 

[Syriusly]

No, because the baker does not sell them. If he or she did, and refused to sell them to a Christian, THAT would be discrimination.

wait a minute. He sells toppers with a man and a woman. Is he not discriminating by not selling toppers with two men or two women?


I am just trying to get everyone to think this through and understand where it will lead.

No, it isn't discriminating because he doesn't sell the toppers. He is free to choose the products he sells. He is not free to refuse to sell a product he sells to someone because he is a bigot against them.

The PA laws do not dictate what a business may sell.

But they mandate who he must sell to. Want to see real discrimination? Walk down a street in Dearborn Michigan wearing a yamaca and reciting jewish scripture, OR, walk down the same street wearing a large gold cross and reciting the psalms. You would likely be stoned, beaten up, or maybe killed.

there is not tolerance in islam. But yet, you libs insist that we give them tolerance in all things. hypocrisy, stupidity, ignorance? which is it?

Hello? What you've described is against the law (beating someone up, etc., because of their religion). So how is enforcing laws against Muslims beating people up giving them tolerance?

In muslim enclaves in this country ....... those laws are not being enforced. We are tolerating illegal behavior because of the perpetrator's minority status. Its insane.

Prove it- with something other than a Muslim hate site making the claims.

 

[Syriusly]

It's so ironic that you think I'm going to hell for the non familial consenting adult I'm madly in love with...

Whether you go to hell is up to God. What you do in private and who you do it with is no ones business but you and the other person.

What you want is for societly to condone your behavior and give you sanction of your lifestyle.

A society decides what it considers acceptable and what behavior it will sanction. In a muslim society you would be stoned to death.

The way to resolve this is to have a referendum in each state and then a consittutional amendment to either sanction gay marriage or to deny it. Such an amendment could also address multiple person marriage, relative marriage, etc.

So lets let the people decide and live with the results. OK?

An amendment is not necessary.

It's so ironic that you think I'm going to hell for the non familial consenting adult I'm madly in love with...

Whether you go to hell is up to God. What you do in private and who you do it with is no ones business but you and the other person.

What you want is for societly to condone your behavior and give you sanction of your lifestyle.

A society decides what it considers acceptable and what behavior it will sanction. In a muslim society you would be stoned to death.

The way to resolve this is to have a referendum in each state and then a consittutional amendment to either sanction gay marriage or to deny it. Such an amendment could also address multiple person marriage, relative marriage, etc.

So lets let the people decide and live with the results. OK?

marriage is contract law. It provides a next of kin relationship between two consenting adult where no such next of kin relationship exists. Denying such citizens access to the system of jurisprudence is wrong. Let the court say so and make it right.

marriage is controlled by state laws. If you want gay marriage recognized in all 50 states then you need to amend the constitution.

Yes, marriage is controlled by state laws but those laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees as described in the Windsor ruling. And no, a constitutional amendment is not requited for gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. Presently 37 out of 50 states are marrying gays without one so that is merely your opinion.

that state by state approach will not work, and it will lead to legalization of multiple marriage and all other forms of human groupings being called marriages.

a constitutional amendment would fix it forever and fix it clearly and precisely.

Gays don't want a vote on an amendment because they know they would lose. They lost twice in the left wing state of california.

Nothing prevents homophobes from pushing a Gay Jim Crow Amendment through the House, other than Republicans.

 

[Ravi]

Your views of public accommodations laws are predicated on errant, failed libertarian and utopian dogma, where such laws in no way mitigate 'basic freedom,' just as laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage or maintaining safe working conditions for employees in no way mitigate 'basic freedom.'

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate markets, and that's what public accommodations laws do, they regulate local markets to ensure their integrity – absent violating 'basic freedom.'

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

It limits how it can be expressed. You really don't get that?

I don't see how, as it merely says all customers should be treated equally.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, the point of the law is to provide for equal access to products and services for minorities.

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

Anyone who took a hit for that would have no problems suing, and winning, unless a perfectly valid business reason.

That's simply not true. Contact an attorney. People are turned away routinely for the above reasons, and many, many more.

I really don't get it. You're usually pretty enthused about in-your-face, authoritarian government. Why's it so hard to admit these laws are going after bigots?

So what if they are? Society gets to set the rules, or haven't you picked up on that yet?

 

[dblack]

That's a conceit and an abuse of the Commerce clause. The intent and effect of PA laws and protected classes isn't to protect rights or regulate commerce. It's to target unpopular opinions for suppression.

And yet you can spend all day railing against gays or Christians. You can put a sign in your window I HATE_______s.

Where is the suppression?

Are you denying that the point of these laws is to suppress bigotry?

How it suppressed when it can be expressed? And, no, the law is not to suppress bigotry.

It limits how it can be expressed. You really don't get that?

I don't see how, as it merely says all customers should be treated equally.

See my previous observations. That 's not what it says.

 

[dblack]

Then it's an abject failure. It only grants this privilege to select, popular groups..

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

Anyone who took a hit for that would have no problems suing, and winning, unless a perfectly valid business reason.

That's simply not true. Contact an attorney. People are turned away routinely for the above reasons, and many, many more.

I really don't get it. You're usually pretty enthused about in-your-face, authoritarian government. Why's it so hard to admit these laws are going after bigots?

So what if they are? Society gets to set the rules, or haven't you picked up on that yet?

Because if they can go after bigots, they can go after anyone. That may tickle your fascist balls, but I trust that some liberals can recognize that as a dangerous power to grant government.

 

[Skylar]

No, it grants it to nearly everyone. No we're just throwing in the alternate sexual orientations.

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

Anyone who took a hit for that would have no problems suing, and winning, unless a perfectly valid business reason.

That's simply not true. Contact an attorney. People are turned away routinely for the above reasons, and many, many more.

I really don't get it. You're usually pretty enthused about in-your-face, authoritarian government. Why's it so hard to admit these laws are going after bigots?

So what if they are? Society gets to set the rules, or haven't you picked up on that yet?

Because if they can go after bigots, they can go after anyone. That may tickle your fascist balls, but I trust that some liberals can recognize that as a dangerous power to grant government.

Requiring that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally isn't 'going after everyone'. Nor is it 'fascism'.

Nor are PA laws the same thing as Jim Crow laws.

Your claims don't work in context. They don't even work particularly well without context.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DBLACK SAID:

“Because if they can go after bigots, they can go after anyone. That may tickle your fascist balls, but I trust that some liberals can recognize that as a dangerous power to grant government.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Stand your ground,
It's a sad situation and scary when the GAYstapo gets you in their line of fire

bigotry is sad. luckily it's dying out.

If only it would on the left side of the aisle also

example?

Example of what? Bigotry from the left? Start with religion.

what about it? there are far more religious bigots on the right than the left.

Not the issue.
You accused those who are non liberal to be bigots. You also implied liberals can not be bigoted.
You lied.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"If we lose our God given right to practice our religious beliefs as we see fit, we lose ourselves as a nation."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

DBLACK SAID:

“Because if they can go after bigots, they can go after anyone. That may tickle your fascist balls, but I trust that some liberals can recognize that as a dangerous power to grant government.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

No... it doesn't. The noting of a slippery slope is NOT a fallacy, where the noted slope is in fact SLIPPERY.

LOL! Aren't you suppose to be a Barrister? Did no one teach you in your post graduate studies WHAT "Logic" is and how it works?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"If we lose our God given right to practice our religious beliefs as we see fit, we lose ourselves as a nation."

So, move. This was never a nation for your kind.

 

[Skylar]

bigotry is sad. luckily it's dying out.

If only it would on the left side of the aisle also

example?

Example of what? Bigotry from the left? Start with religion.

what about it? there are far more religious bigots on the right than the left.

Not the issue.
You accused those who are non liberal to be bigots.

More accurately, he implied a particular non-liberal of being a bigot. Unless you're arguing that if you're non-liberal you can't be a bigot.....then your entire line of reasoning just collapsed.

You also implied liberals can not be bigoted.
.

And by 'implied', you mean you just pulled that sideways out of your ass?

You're not very good of this.

 

[Syriusly]

Every time i see the title of this thread- and this part
Pens Defiant

I think of the Saturday Night Jeopardy skit where 'Sean Connery' mispeaks 'The Pen is mightier' as 'the penis mightier'

After days of chuckling about this to myself....I still imagine 'Sean Connery' saying "Alex, I will take "Penis Defiant" for 200"

 

[dblack]

... I trust that SOME liberals can recognize that as a dangerous power to grant government.”

 

[dblack]

Not even close to true. Most unpopular minorities are not protected protected from discrimination. Under current civil rights law people can legally be discriminated against because of their looks, their socio-economic status, their credit history, their health, their education, their intelligence, their social network, their political views, etc, etc, etc... Which only underlines my point. Protected classes are about targeting specific social biases for "modification", and not about equal rights.

Anyone who took a hit for that would have no problems suing, and winning, unless a perfectly valid business reason.

That's simply not true. Contact an attorney. People are turned away routinely for the above reasons, and many, many more.

I really don't get it. You're usually pretty enthused about in-your-face, authoritarian government. Why's it so hard to admit these laws are going after bigots?

So what if they are? Society gets to set the rules, or haven't you picked up on that yet?

Because if they can go after bigots, they can go after anyone. That may tickle your fascist balls, but I trust that some liberals can recognize that as a dangerous power to grant government.

Requiring that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally isn't 'going after everyone'. Nor is it 'fascism'.

a) - as I've pointed out, PA laws don't require that businesses treat all their customers fairly.
b) - I didn't say they were 'going after everyone'. I said they can go after anyone.
c) - I didn't say PA laws were fascist. I called PMH a fascist.

Nor are PA laws the same thing as Jim Crow laws.

They're based on the same premise - namely that government should have the power to dictate who we associate with.