Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

So your previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts has no bearing on the discussion ... Much like most of your arguments?

.

No...that still stands....but it stands separate from this particular case. Gays most certainly should be allowed equal access to our court system and to whine about them being "litigious" is silly. However, that has no bearing in this particular case because the couple did not sue........the state fined the business based on a law that's been on the books for several years.

and again, you are splitting hairs. Fine, they are wasting government's time with this. Still, go **** yourself.

Is there a reason why you have to be rude? Besides not having an argument to stand with, that is?

 

[ninja007]

Ignorant liberal homosexual poster has avatar of islam and homosexuality colors in it.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sure that will go over well with Isis.

 

[BlackSand]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

"to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs"? No. But this is not what happened. You DO know that, right?

Go back and read the article because that is exactly what happened.

The proprietor of the establishment was fined by the state due to the fact his religious beliefs compelled him not to provide the service. The state discriminated against the proprietor due to his religious beliefs.

.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a ******* cowardly ****.

No it is not....it is the state fining a business based on a law on the books......just like a business might be fined for safety code violations. This doesn't even eliminate the couple's ability to sue on their own for discrimination if they wished to.........but I'm not hearing about this "overly litigious" gay couple doing so. Have you?

They complain, the state goes to some judiciary authority to press "charges", and the people are punished. Its just like suing someone, except you get the executive branch of the government to do your dirty work for you.

They complained, they set the wheels in motion, they are the assholes.

So...people are "assholes" for complaining when a business law has been broken?

 

[BlackSand]

So...people are "assholes" for complaining when a business law has been broken?

So ... Some people are assholes for supporting state sanctioned discrimination against others due to their religious beliefs.

.

 

[bodecea]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

"to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs"? No. But this is not what happened. You DO know that, right?

Go back and read the article because that is exactly what happened.

The proprietor of the establishment was fined by the state due to the fact his religious beliefs compelled him not to provide the service. The state discriminated against the proprietor due to his religious beliefs.

.

No...the business discriminated against a law-abiding, tax-paying couple by not providing them with the business service they had obtained a STATE business license for. They broke the PA law of the state....a law they should know is there since they obtained a business license from the STATE.

 

[bodecea]

I imagine a liberal would sell his/her/its principles for about $3. These folks kept theirs for a mere $13,000. An amount that could be restored within seconds were a fund-raiser to magically spring up.

Amen---obviously these "homophobes" weren't afraid to tell the homos to take their wedding party and stick it up their ass.
Kudos to them for not caving to the whiny babies.

The STATE is a whiny baby? Because it was the STATE that fined the business.

And why is it that anti-gay marriage people and anti-gay posters in general keep using terminology like "shove it down our throats" and "stick it up their ass"? Freudian?

 

[bodecea]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

.

You keep saying "individuals" when you should know by now that this is a business we are talking about.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The new Congress's first order of business needs to be passing a federal law legalizing gay marraige but making it illegal to prevent businesses from declining to participate.

Let the Dems say no to that

 

[SwimExpert]

...they had obtained a STATE business license for.

Eh?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

.

You keep saying "individuals" when you should know by now that this is a business we are talking about.

If you were a business owner you would feel different

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a ******* cowardly ****.

No it is not....it is the state fining a business based on a law on the books......just like a business might be fined for safety code violations. This doesn't even eliminate the couple's ability to sue on their own for discrimination if they wished to.........but I'm not hearing about this "overly litigious" gay couple doing so. Have you?

Who filed the complaint?

I would imagine the couple did. Are they not allowed to?

 

[BlackSand]

No...the business discriminated against a law-abiding, tax-paying couple by not providing them with the business service they had obtained a STATE business license for. They broke the PA law of the state....a law they should know is there since they obtained a business license from the STATE.

No ... The state law discriminates against religious people due to their beliefs.

I never said it wasn't state law ... I asked you if it was okay to discriminate against individuals due to their religious beliefs. I asked if it is Constitutional for the state to levy a fine against an individual due to their religious beliefs.

You cannot say that it is okay to discriminate against one person or another because it suits your desires. If you think it is okay to fine individuals because of their religious beliefs ... Then you will get closer to understanding why they don't respect your beliefs or desires.

.

 

[bodecea]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

.

Segregationists claimed religious beliefs as did slave owners.

Homosexuals dictating religious doctrine is the same as blacks in slavery?

.

This is an interesting post. Where are "homosexuals dictating religious doctrine"?

 

[Silhouette]

Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

Yep, that will bring a slew of votes from the middle bloc for the dems in 2016. Because you know, 'the majority of voters support forcing homosexuality on people of faith'

Check those numbers on the poll here: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 464 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The democratic party is walking straight into this bear-trap. Wouldn't surprise me at all to find that some of the "rabid pro gay" posters here are undercover GOP operatives. The disconnect between reality and failure is that pronounced..

 

[bodecea]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

a business is a person.One does not lose their own civil rights just to sell a product or a service. It is in fact THEIR Civil rights that are being violated by the government.

The laws are being abused by litigious twats like you.

A business can be made up of one person....but businesses have to follow business laws if they want a license. Just Joe Schmoe Individual does not.

 

[BlackSand]

This is an interesting post. Where are "homosexuals dictating religious doctrine"?

Compelling religious followers or institutions to perform gay marriages through fines ... Is an attempt to dictate doctrine through forced compliance.

.

 

[martybegan]

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

So your previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts has no bearing on the discussion ... Much like most of your arguments?

.

No...that still stands....but it stands separate from this particular case. Gays most certainly should be allowed equal access to our court system and to whine about them being "litigious" is silly. However, that has no bearing in this particular case because the couple did not sue........the state fined the business based on a law that's been on the books for several years.

and again, you are splitting hairs. Fine, they are wasting government's time with this. Still, go **** yourself.

Is there a reason why you have to be rude? Besides not having an argument to stand with, that is?

1. you deserve it you Nazi ****.
2. People deciding their fake rights are more important than others real rights, especially when they get government involved piss me off and deserve no courtesy whatsoever.

 

[martybegan]

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

a business is a person.One does not lose their own civil rights just to sell a product or a service. It is in fact THEIR Civil rights that are being violated by the government.

The laws are being abused by litigious twats like you.

A business can be made up of one person....but businesses have to follow business laws if they want a license. Just Joe Schmoe Individual does not.

you keep hiding behind the fact the law is in place, not debating the morality of the law in the first place, or at least its implementation in these cases. Your slavish devotion to the letter of the law, just like a good little Nazi, is noted.