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

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

LOL you expect honest debate from a piece of shit like Bodecea?

 

[BlackSand]

They are just screwing with the white Christians to make political points and push their way to more power in politics.

I haven't seen any same sex couples suing the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in the ghetto. Nothing to gain there ... And the congregation would run them out of town on a rail for suggesting their homosexuality is the same as being black.

.

 

[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.

Yes and businesses are run by individuals. That doesn't go away just because of the group identity.

bodecea when we LOSE that sense of individual accountability to each other
that is where Corporations get abusive and oppressive,
and Governments and Religious groups abuse individuals.

We cannot lose sight of individual consent, and checks and balance on power.
When we do, that is why we have political and religious abuse of power
by church and state authority, by corporations and religious or even nonprofit organizations.

We have to start holding all people and groups equally accountable
just like we "check" the powers of govt by the Bill of Rights which protects individuals and due process
so nobody gets run over by a larger collective group with more resources and defenses.

This issue happens to be TWO SIDED
there is BOTH the right to believe in gay marriage
and the right to believe in traditional marriage

these are EQUAL under law
so we need to write and enforce laws so that
they protect BOTH SIDES EQUALLY

and where we fail, we run into these conflicts
and contradictions which tell us the law and how
it was written and enforced was biased and flawed

we need to do better than this so neither side
feels threatened or excluded by the other
or favored by govt, but all sides must be
equally protected, represented and not discriminated against.

both sides, equally, to be fully constitutional as required by laws
for the equal religious freedom of all and against discrimination by creed

this would require a consensus where all sides agree
they are included and not discriminated against

this is why we either need to keep religious issues OUT of govt
or have a consensus on policies so the govt isn't abused to take side

bodecea you seem a very fair minded person

certainly with deeper and openly objective examination
you can see both sides have their beliefs they have the right
to and no person can be deprived of such inalienable rights
so the laws are written poorly and need to be revised to
prevent from imposing on either side or these conflicts will keep happening

surely you see and know that govt cannot be used to
impose a religious settlement and expect to resolve the conflict

people have the right to CHOOSE their beliefs
not be imposed on by govt, so that is unconstitutional
regardless which side wins or loses and imposes on the other

surely you can see it is two sided!

The problem people seem to be having is with PA laws. These laws have been around for a while. If you don't like PA laws, get your state congresscritters to repeal them. But you can't pick and choose which law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they will apply to, even for religious reasons or else you open the door for such as those muslim taxi-drivers getting to choose to not serve women or those carrying alcohol for religious reasons.

Personally, I have no problem with PA laws going away.....and businesses being allowed to discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they don't like.....and letting us all know they discriminate.

 

[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.

Yes and businesses are run by individuals. That doesn't go away just because of the group identity.

bodecea when we LOSE that sense of individual accountability to each other
that is where Corporations get abusive and oppressive,
and Governments and Religious groups abuse individuals.

We cannot lose sight of individual consent, and checks and balance on power.
When we do, that is why we have political and religious abuse of power
by church and state authority, by corporations and religious or even nonprofit organizations.

We have to start holding all people and groups equally accountable
just like we "check" the powers of govt by the Bill of Rights which protects individuals and due process
so nobody gets run over by a larger collective group with more resources and defenses.

This issue happens to be TWO SIDED
there is BOTH the right to believe in gay marriage
and the right to believe in traditional marriage

these are EQUAL under law
so we need to write and enforce laws so that
they protect BOTH SIDES EQUALLY

and where we fail, we run into these conflicts
and contradictions which tell us the law and how
it was written and enforced was biased and flawed

we need to do better than this so neither side
feels threatened or excluded by the other
or favored by govt, but all sides must be
equally protected, represented and not discriminated against.

both sides, equally, to be fully constitutional as required by laws
for the equal religious freedom of all and against discrimination by creed

this would require a consensus where all sides agree
they are included and not discriminated against

this is why we either need to keep religious issues OUT of govt
or have a consensus on policies so the govt isn't abused to take side

bodecea you seem a very fair minded person

certainly with deeper and openly objective examination
you can see both sides have their beliefs they have the right
to and no person can be deprived of such inalienable rights
so the laws are written poorly and need to be revised to
prevent from imposing on either side or these conflicts will keep happening

surely you see and know that govt cannot be used to
impose a religious settlement and expect to resolve the conflict

people have the right to CHOOSE their beliefs
not be imposed on by govt, so that is unconstitutional
regardless which side wins or loses and imposes on the other

surely you can see it is two sided!

The problem people seem to be having is with PA laws. These laws have been around for a while. If you don't like PA laws, get your state congresscritters to repeal them. But you can't pick and choose which law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they will apply to, even for religious reasons or else you open the door for such as those muslim taxi-drivers getting to choose to not serve women or those carrying alcohol for religious reasons.

Personally, I have no problem with PA laws going away.....and businesses being allowed to discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they don't like.....and letting us all know they discriminate.

You are so stupid that you don't realize that that is EXACTLY what the laws do. I could hang a sign right outside my business "we don't serve current or former Puckered Petes"

Now, obviously YOU would still be served, but real Puckered Petes would not, and that would be legal, because Puckered Petes are not a protected class.

 

[bodecea]

They are just screwing with the white Christians to make political points and push their way to more power in politics.

I haven't seen any same sex couples suing the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in the ghetto. Nothing to gain there ... And the congregation would run them out of town on a rail for suggesting their homosexuality is the same as being black.

.

Because it is a church....not a business. There is a difference when it comes to Constitutionality. Mt Zion Baptist Church (or any church, temple, etc.) is not required to marry anyone they don't want to.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

LOL you expect honest debate from a piece of shit like Bodecea?

Maybe I missed any msgs where Bodecea was being that way to anyone.
The msgs I read about defending marriage rights came across as biased toward
that side but at least trying to argue on principles Bodecea believes in.

If we stick to those principles, we can resolve this fairly.

I can see Bodecea is committed to those, and that's what it takes.
Sticking to the points and content, and not getting sidetracked
attacking people personally which gets nowhere.

I think Hazelnut has more of a personal agenda against Christians.
Bodecea seems to argue based on principles,
and is only missing the fact these same principles apply to Christian beliefs about marriage equally.


so there is a better chance at reaching agreement there,
than with someone like Hazelnut whose agenda is more focused against Christians
and isn't focused on the principles at stake like bodecea appears to focus on.

With people like Hazelnut
Christian spiritual healing would have to be proven as
valid and effective and natural, including how it has helped
people overcome unwanted sexual attractions that weren't natural for that person
and they WANTED and choose to change what was causing it.
Before Hazelnut might let go of some of this animosity and hatred
toward Christians, thinking it is all false. There is some truth there.
Some cases of homosexuality that isn't natural can be healed and changed.
And if more people on ALL sides understood not all cases are the same,
they'd quit fighting and blaming each other for rejecting the idea that
such cases may be different, some natural and some unnatural,
some changing and some not changing. And stop the hostility about it.

bodecea seems above that level and is more principled in arguments.
that is just my impression

maybe I missed the msgs that show otherwise,
but martybegan the same could be said of you
if you take your negative msgs and judge you for that
and not look at all the arguments you make that are valid as well!

 

[bodecea]

Should a business be able to provide a business service to some, but not all, law-abiding citizens due to their declared religious grounds? Under the law that has to be a clear yes or no answer.

 

[emilynghiem]

They are just screwing with the white Christians to make political points and push their way to more power in politics.

I haven't seen any same sex couples suing the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in the ghetto. Nothing to gain there ... And the congregation would run them out of town on a rail for suggesting their homosexuality is the same as being black.

.

Because it is a church....not a business. There is a difference when it comes to Constitutionality. Mt Zion Baptist Church (or any church, temple, etc.) is not required to marry anyone they don't want to.

OK so let that land be owned by a church
and all activities be church run activities.

Monks and nuns used to work as scribes to support themselves,
so church owned groups can offer services as well.

That's one way to solve it.

Maybe people in all cities should start districting their
communities as church run campuses, so they
can have local control on what activities they want or don't want on their land.

And quit fighting with each other over what policies to mandate publicly.
this would limit the govt to just general policies that all people agree to,
and would keep all private agenda and issues private for people to choose among themselves.

 

[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.

.

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

OK so make all this church business within their private practice
and get it out of the state altogether if that's where the conflict lies.

Don't force church and state into each other's business
and then complain afterwards you don't agree!

Like Duh, huh?

Thanks bodecea
I think you are a fair person,
and it is just this situation is not fair.
both sides are going to lose if they keep imposing
on each other, there is no way to win unless they separate.

If they are nothing but a church, then yes......but when this occurred they were a wedding BUSINESS.....providing wedding services for a price. They had a state business license and part of having a state business license is to follow state laws INCLUDING PA (public accommodation) laws.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

.

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

OK so make all this church business within their private practice
and get it out of the state altogether if that's where the conflict lies.

Don't force church and state into each other's business
and then complain afterwards you don't agree!

Like Duh, huh?

Thanks bodecea
I think you are a fair person,
and it is just this situation is not fair.
both sides are going to lose if they keep imposing
on each other, there is no way to win unless they separate.

If they are nothing but a church, then yes......but when this occurred they were a wedding BUSINESS.....providing wedding services for a price. They had a state business license and part of having a state business license is to follow state laws INCLUDING PA (public accommodation) laws.

Oh, you mean like providing insurance that covers ALL forms of birth control Pete?

 

[bodecea]

Keep in mind that weddings are big business now. Lots of places that provide scenic venues with catering services, etc. for these weddings. They are BUSINESSES. And they are required to have business licenses. And having a business license requires following state law for businesses...including any PA (public accommodation) laws in place.

 

[mudwhistle]

Should a business be able to provide a business service to some, but not all, law-abiding citizens due to their declared religious grounds? Under the law that has to be a clear yes or no answer.

If this was involving Muslims you guys wouldn't be hassling these folks. The only religion the left wants to mess with is Christianity.

I guess screwing over Christians is cool cuz they wouldn't become violent and blow your asses up.

 

[BlackSand]

They are just screwing with the white Christians to make political points and push their way to more power in politics.

I haven't seen any same sex couples suing the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in the ghetto. Nothing to gain there ... And the congregation would run them out of town on a rail for suggesting their homosexuality is the same as being black.

.

Because it is a church....not a business. There is a difference when it comes to Constitutionality. Mt Zion Baptist Church (or any church, temple, etc.) is not required to marry anyone they don't want to.

Okay ... I don't see them suing Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack.

If you have to make a distinction as to the nature of the establishment ... It still doesn't diminish the act involved. The good folks at Uncle Jack's would have the same objections for the same reasons from the same people. There is still nothing the homosexuals would gain from suing a black man's bar-b-que shack.

If you cannot make the distinction or identify the equality between a homosexual individual's desires versus a Christian's desires ... You simply are not intellectually honest.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should a business be able to provide a business service to some, but not all, law-abiding citizens due to their declared religious grounds? Under the law that has to be a clear yes or no answer.

I think we'd have to use common sense here.
If one side is trying to harass or punish the other that is the problem, not the conflicting beliefs per se.

if people are being civil, then whether they have a personal, religious or other conflict that can't be resolved,
they won't push it on each other, and make an issue of it trying to harass, abuse or punish anyone.

What if I don't want to sell a gun or a car to someone because I don't feel comfortable,
and worry they have some criminal intent that I cannot prove but don't want to be a part of?
What if I just don't want to? period.

What if someone wants me to sew a tailor-made outfit for a wedding,
but I don't think I'm the best person if I sew for women's suits and this is for a man
and I don't know how to size that to look right. Is that gender discrimination?

What if only teach vegetarian cooking and offering catering in that, and don't believe
in meat, or inethical sources of supplies, and someone asks me to cater using things outside my beliefs?

let's be reasonable here!

can't we respect each other first, and then write laws
and enforce them in that spirit.

I see only conflict when people interpret laws in a onesided
way for the purpose of adversarial rejection,
and then argue they are being treated that way.

what happened to the good old Golden Rule
that if we don't want to be harassed, abused or discriminated against
then we shouldn't do that either. and just be civil and not push our conflicts into a lawsuit int he first place.

 

[bodecea]

Should a business be able to provide a business service to some, but not all, law-abiding citizens due to their declared religious grounds? Under the law that has to be a clear yes or no answer.

If this was involving Muslims you guys wouldn't be hassling these folks. The only religion the left wants to mess with is Christianity.

I guess screwing over Christians is cool cuz they wouldn't become violent and blow your asses up.

Au contrare. Any Muslim pulling the same crap should be fined just as much.

 

[emilynghiem]

Keep in mind that weddings are big business now. Lots of places that provide scenic venues with catering services, etc. for these weddings. They are BUSINESSES. And they are required to have business licenses. And having a business license requires following state law for businesses...including any PA (public accommodation) laws in place.

OK so I would argue those same PA laws need to accommodate religious beliefs such as traditional marriage.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you are going to argue for inclusion, then be inclusive.
No more arguing, then.

Include all views, and subject any conflict to mediation and consensus,
or agreement to separate or dissolve the business contract amicably.

People who cannot agree to accommodate each other's beliefs under the law
should NOT do business together but should agree to remain separate.

How hard is that?

If you want to enforce equal rights, then practice the same equally for others.
That's just common sense.

 

[Seawytch]

Public accommodation laws, which have been around since the 60s, disagree.

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

I guess only a moron would force an establishment to provide a 'service'. You'll get what you pay for. But I get it, everyone want to be the next Rosa Parks and all, but why not take your business somewhere else? Why force someone to take your money? I don't get it

-Geaux

And I'm sure you've been railing against Public Accommodations since people were "forced" to serve blacks since the 1960s, right?

I never heard too much about the "injustice" and "tyranny" of PA laws...until about five to ten years ago when they began to ALSO protect gays in some places on equal footing with race, religion, etc. Funny that.

OK- But what about my question? What is your educated 'guess' as to why someone would just simply not take their business elsewhere? My guess is they are paid shills to bring their 'plight' to the forefront.

If they really wanted what they protest, they would of succeeded already elsewhere

-Geaux

Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.

If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?

Mark

No. It protects the religious from discrimination. I am forced, by federal law to serve crazy eyed Christians in all 50 states. They only have to serve me in a few. Change 'em all or STFU.

 

[bodecea]

They are just screwing with the white Christians to make political points and push their way to more power in politics.

I haven't seen any same sex couples suing the Mt. Zion Baptist Church in the ghetto. Nothing to gain there ... And the congregation would run them out of town on a rail for suggesting their homosexuality is the same as being black.

.

Because it is a church....not a business. There is a difference when it comes to Constitutionality. Mt Zion Baptist Church (or any church, temple, etc.) is not required to marry anyone they don't want to.

Okay ... I don't see them suing Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack.

If you have to make a distinction as to the nature of the establishment ... It still doesn't diminish the act involved. The good folks at Uncle Jack's would have the same objections for the same reasons from the same people. There is still nothing the homosexuals would gain from suing a black man's bar-b-que shack.

If you cannot make the distinction or identify the equality between a homosexual individual's desires versus a Christian's desires ... You simply are not intellectually honest.

.

Do you have an example of gays being refused service at Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack?

 

[BlackSand]

Should a business be able to provide a business service to some, but not all, law-abiding citizens due to their declared religious grounds? Under the law that has to be a clear yes or no answer.

I think we'd have to use common sense here.
If one side is trying to harass or punish the other that is the problem, not the conflicting beliefs per se.

if people are being civil, then whether they have a personal, religious or other conflict that can't be resolved,
they won't push it on each other, and make an issue of it trying to harass, abuse or punish anyone.

What if I don't want to sell a gun or a car to someone because I don't feel comfortable,
and worry they have some criminal intent that I cannot prove but don't want to be a part of?
What if I just don't want to? period.

What if someone wants me to sew a tailor-made outfit for a wedding,
but I don't think I'm the best person if I sew for women's suits and this is for a man
and I don't know how to size that to look right. Is that gender discrimination?

What if only teach vegetarian cooking and offering catering in that, and don't believe
in meat, or inethical sources of supplies, and someone asks me to cater using things outside my beliefs?

let's be reasonable here!

can't we respect each other first, and then write laws
and enforce them in that spirit.

I see only conflict when people interpret laws in a onesided
way for the purpose of adversarial rejection,
and then argue they are being treated that way.

what happened to the good old Golden Rule
that if we don't want to be harassed, abused or discriminated against
then we shouldn't do that either. and just be civil and not push our conflicts into a lawsuit int he first place.

Great outlook on the situation ... But you have to remember the what they are doing isn't about the simple matters involved. They are using the situations that exist to influence political protection.

They will use every excuse in the book to explain why it is necessary ... But the truth is it isn't necessary. A couple's marriage is not going to be ruined if they don't make a business cater to them. There is no blanket discrimination against homosexuals and plenty of similar venues that would be more than willing to accommodate.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.

If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?

Mark

Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.

The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.

Mark

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

The segregationists and anti miscegenationists believed it was there, it doesn't matter if YOU believe it's there.