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

[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.

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

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

Churches and mosques aren't subject to PA laws. Stop conflating.

 

[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.

.

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

I have an example of no same sex couples suing the bar-b-que shack ... Aren't you the stickler towards attention to detail? Try and keep up.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Segregationists, you mean liberals?

Most of them were Democrats.

 

[Seawytch]

When it comes to the constitution, no.

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

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

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.

So a business no longer has the freedom to offer its services to who it chooses? Would the state sue a gay or black business for refusing to cater to a KKK rally?

Excellent point.

Mark

Stupid point until bigots are declared 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.

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.

.

First of all, "the homosexuals" would not be suing Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack....they would be reporting to to the state's business bureau who would investigate the allegations. If the business admitted to refusing services to gay couples because they are gay, they would be fined.

Now....do you have an example of Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack refusing service to gays and getting away with it?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Segregationists, you mean liberals?

Most of them we're Democrats.

Segregationists, Mr Non Seqitur.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Segregationists, you mean liberals?

Most of them we're Democrats.

The operative word is "were".

 

[mudwhistle]

B

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.

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

Churches and mosques aren't subject to PA laws. Stop conflating.

Bullshit.

Link.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Segregationists, you mean liberals?

Most of them we're Democrats.

The operative word is "were".

Still are. Most of them are black now.

 

[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.

.

First of all, "the homosexuals" would not be suing Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack....they would be reporting to to the state's business bureau who would investigate the allegations. If the business admitted to refusing services to gay couples because they are gay, they would be fined.

Now....do you have an example of Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack refusing service to gays and getting away with it?

I addressed your questions in the post you responded to in the first place ...

"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."

Do try to keep up.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Segregationists, you mean liberals?

Most of them we're Democrats.

Segregationists, Mr Non Seqitur.

Yup. Democrats. George Wallace and the like.

Now blacks are talking about it more than anyone. Bet you could include protesters in Ferguson in that group.

 

[Seawytch]

B

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.

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

Churches and mosques aren't subject to PA laws. Stop conflating.

Bullshit.

Link.

You need a link to the 1st Amendment?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Apparently you are upset about having no valid argument. Thus you resort to rude insults.

I resort to rude insults regardless of the validity of my arguments, said insults are based on the target, not the topic.

 

[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.

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

Sigh.....again you are referring to the equivalent to a church....a religious institution. Just like no church is required to marry anyone against that church's doctrine, same with any mosque.

HOWEVER, if a wedding catering service, or wedding location business is being owned/run by a Muslim...they too are required to follow state PA (public accommodation) laws as per their business license.


So.....how long are you going to keep throwing out religious institutions as "examples" in a case that involved a business, not a religious institution? Do you not think we can see the difference?

 

[BlackSand]

B

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.

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

Churches and mosques aren't subject to PA laws. Stop conflating.

Bullshit.

Link.

You need a link to the 1st Amendment?

Seems like you do ... Or at least need to reexamine the part about not infringing on the ability to practice your religion.

.

 

[martybegan]

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

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.

So a business no longer has the freedom to offer its services to who it chooses? Would the state sue a gay or black business for refusing to cater to a KKK rally?

Excellent point.

Mark

Stupid point until bigots are declared a protected class.

Who gets to decide who is a protected class? The whole concept of a protected class is a shit on the principles of equality.

Everyone should be protected from the government, but people shouldn't have the government protect their feewings.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Suuuuuuure they would.

How many gays go to a mosque to ask for a wedding and expect to leave unscathed?

Zero. They would become a statistic.

Sigh.....again you are referring to the equivalent to a church....a religious institution. Just like no church is required to marry anyone against that church's doctrine, same with any mosque.

HOWEVER, if a wedding catering service, or wedding location business is being owned/run by a Muslim...they too are required to follow state PA (public accommodation) laws as per their business license.


So.....how long are you going to keep throwing out religious institutions as "examples" in a case that involved a business, not a religious institution? Do you not think we can see the difference?

I keep missing the part where the 1st amendment only protects churches and clergy from government interference.

It protects freedom of religion, not freedom to be a priest, or be a church.

 

[martybegan]

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.

.

First of all, "the homosexuals" would not be suing Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack....they would be reporting to to the state's business bureau who would investigate the allegations. If the business admitted to refusing services to gay couples because they are gay, they would be fined.

Now....do you have an example of Uncle Jack's Bar-B-Que Shack refusing service to gays and getting away with it?

again, using the government to fight for you hurt widdle feewings.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Seawytch
trying to come up with the equivalent for you
of what it is like to hire wedding services of people that forces them to attend
and PARTICIPATE in a gay wedding if they don't believe in that.

How about something like this:
A. what if you do not agree with Christianity,
but you are asked to write and deliver a speech praising Christianity
and pointing out the good practices, history and benefits of the outreach.
Do you have the right to turn down that business/job
because you feel someone else is more suited to do that, and you don't want it.

B. If someone was going to rent your land to kill cows and chickens as a demonstration
of the process, to make a revenge statement against PETA to be mean,
or film a porn movie where people are acting out rape, and you
don't agree with those activities. Do you have the right to turn
down business you prefer not to have on your property.

C. if someone wants to rent your private facility to
give a speech denying the Holocaust and defending their
beliefs they are the ones harassed by the jews, not the other way,
do you have the right to turn down that business and say no thanks
i'd rather not be associated with having supported this level of free speech.

those are just examples I threw together

can anyone else think of some that a normal person
might refuse and nobody would fault them for saying no thanks I'll pass!