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

[toxicmedia]

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.

I always get a tickle when someone can't, or won't grasp the difference between Yellow Dog Democrats, Dixiecrats, and post Reagan era Democrats.

They always wind up looking silly, unless they're just trolling after too many adult beverages, or too much Fox News/Rush, in the morning

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

You said PA laws.

Quit moving the goalposts.

Back your shit up.


BYW, this issue surfaced in NY, not PA.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Then push to have all PA (public accommodation) laws repealed.

 

[bodecea]

B

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?

You said PA laws.

Quit moving the goalposts.

Back your shit up.


BYW, this issue surfaced in NY, not PA.

PA (public accommodation) laws. How many times do we have to tell you that?

 

[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?

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

I have apparently missed your post providing examples of Uncle Jack's Bar B-Que shack refusing service to gays and getting away with it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Then push to have all PA (public accommodation) laws repealed.

PA's have their place in things like the hotel industry, travel services, actual public spaces, and other things relevant to necessities and interstate commerce. what has to be repealed is calling everything a public accommodation.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I always get a tickle when someone can't, or won't grasp the difference between Yellow Dog Democrats, Dixiecrats, and post Reagan era Democrats.

They always wind up looking silly, unless they're just trolling after too many adult beverages, or too much Fox News/Rush, in the morning

You want to segregate them but the point is they were Democrats. The only reason we passed a civil rights bill was because of Republicans. Same goes for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Them's the facts.

Read it and weep.

 

[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.

I have apparently missed your post providing examples of Uncle Jack's Bar B-Que shack refusing service to gays and getting away with it.

Is a Bar-B-Que shack a necessary commodity?

Boycott his ass if you want to, just don't be a ***** and use government to do your dirty work.

 

[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?

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.

So...where is your example of any homosexuals being in a position to sue a black man's bar-b-que shack for refusal of service? How will we know if they would sue or not if we don't have examples to compare?

 

[AmericanFirst]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

Evil like gay will one day say"oops, we goofed." Then they will cry like the babies they are acting like.

 

[mudwhistle]

B

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?

You said PA laws.

Quit moving the goalposts.

Back your shit up.


BYW, this issue surfaced in NY, not PA.

PA (public accommodation) laws. How many times do we have to tell you that?

Once.

Now I suppose you think you won because I wasn't clear on what you meant.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I always get a tickle when someone can't, or won't grasp the difference between Yellow Dog Democrats, Dixiecrats, and post Reagan era Democrats.

They always wind up looking silly, unless they're just trolling after too many adult beverages, or too much Fox News/Rush, in the morning

You want to segregate them but the point is they were Democrats. The only reason we passed a civil rights bill was because of Republicans. Same goes for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Them's the facts.

Read it and weep.

Actually, the civil rights bill was passed due to NORTHERN Republicans and NORTHERN Democrats......and signed by a Democrat President into law.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I'd rather pay the money than compromise my values. Besides, they are worth more than $13,000.

That's what a ni99er hating racist would have said 40 years ago. Nice job

idiot racist you are.

 

[bodecea]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

Evil like gay will one day say"oops, we goofed." Then they will cry like the babies they are acting like.

So anyone who wants to be treated equally under the law is "crying like a baby"? How would you react if you went to a business and they informed you that you were not going to be served because you were a Christian even tho they serve everyone else? Would you go to the state business bureau, crying like a baby?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Exactly, because you cannot handle the topic.

 

[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.

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?

bodecea
1. do you acknowledge both the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only
as equal rights to those creeds without punishment by govt?
if not, that's why you do not see the law as applying to accommodate BOTH beliefs,
only the pro-gay belief but not the pro-traditional marriage as a valid belief.
if you don't even consider that a choice, that's like people not seeing blacks as people either.
they just don't count as equal.
you don't like it when people discount the views of gays,
why would you marginalize the beliefs of others this same way if it's so demeaning and unequal

2. do you see how slavery laws were enforced one-sidedly
to protect the property rights of the slave owners and banks the
slaves were technically owned by and mortgaged through similar to houses and land.

the laws only protected one side of that equation.

And it took fighting to recognize the equal rights of
the actual slave and the human equality violated there.

So it is possible to follow the letter of the law
and still violate the concept of equal protection of the laws.

doesn't make it right just because the law authorized
govt authority to defend the property rights of the owners
above the rights of the slaves.

if people are equal, we are supposed to be equal.

Not taking one person's beliefs about marriage
and calling them a bigot for it and fining them.
and using the govt to endorse the beliefs of the other side.

To be religiously neutral, both sides would have to come
to some kind of consensual agreement on policy
and then use govt properly to represent and defend THAT
so that ALL people are included equally regardless of beliefs.

that would be constitutional.

this is onesided and causing problems
because people's beliefs are not treated or protected equally.

the bias is hard to see objectively
if you are too busy projecting it onto govt as the default norm.
this is wrong when Christians do it,
why isn't it wrong with secularists do it.

if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
the govt has no business imposing one belief or bias over another.
that is the same as establishing a religion by endorsing one.

so be fair
if you believe in separating church and state
then also see that political beliefs should be separated
or that govt policies should reflect an equal consensus
including all beliefs without exception so it is fair to all.

at least be consistent, please!

 

[bodecea]

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.

Then push to have all PA (public accommodation) laws repealed.

PA's have their place in things like the hotel industry, travel services, actual public spaces, and other things relevant to necessities and interstate commerce. what has to be repealed is calling everything a public accommodation.

Ok....so, state PA (public accommodation) laws are written with those express differences spelled out?

 

[HenryBHough]

For many years I have been comfortable with equal (EQUAL) rights, including marriage and adoption, for same-sex couples.

However, recent in-your-face stuff, as Hazel Nut is pushing, have caused me to think in terms of "queers" and "homos". Hazy, what you're doing is putting your cause back abou5 50 years.

 

[AmericanFirst]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

Evil like gay will one day say"oops, we goofed." Then they will cry like the babies they are acting like.

So anyone who wants to be treated equally under the law is "crying like a baby"? How would you react if you went to a business and they informed you that you were not going to be served because you were a Christian even tho they serve everyone else? Would you go to the state business bureau, crying like a baby?

That happens. I would go somewhere else. But I don't try to force my Christian beliefs down a business throat neither. I wouldn't pay the fine neither.

 

[bodecea]

For many years I have been comfortable with equal (EQUAL) rights, including marriage and adoption, for same-sex couples.

However, recent in-your-face stuff, as Hazel Nut is pushing, have caused me to think in terms of "queers" and "homos". Hazy, what you're doing is putting your cause back abou5 50 years.

We're too uppity?