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

[Seawytch]

"We have the right to refuse service to anyone". I used it in my shop. Maybe things have changed. If so...I feel sorry for business owners.

You haven't had that right since the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 60s.

The Right to Refuse Service

 

[Freewill]

Awe, isn't this special. Two queers playing house. In my eyes, there is no gay marriage, never no matter what happens. They are just playing house.

Me thinks that people have forgotten, or pretend to have forgotten the real purpose of marriage.

Right they demand we accept it, they got the courts on their side. As always as individuals we don't have to accept it, and if we don't. They lose, so in my eyes no matter what. It's two queers playing house, like little kids.

Just think if the Republicans would have accepted the democrat stance on slavery and Dred Scott. What a different and F'ed up country this would be.

 

[80zephyr]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public. 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't generally accepted as legally valid reasoning.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

Thanks.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow, what a fascist country we've become. Why shouldn't someone be able to refuse someone???

Private property and all.

It's a business:

Packages Pricing - Saratoga Fall Family Fun Pumpkin Picking Cornfield Maze

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public. 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't generally accepted as legally valid reasoning.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

Thanks.

Mark

Why would it have to say that, precisely, in the Constitution? Do you have any idea how the Constitution works?

 

[Seawytch]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public. 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't generally accepted as legally valid reasoning.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

Thanks.

Mark

Public Accommodation laws have withstood Supreme Court challenges. Heart of Atlanta and Kazenbach ring any bells?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

Why couldn't you say a person's freedom of religion does not trump a person's right to marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

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

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

 

[80zephyr]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public. 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't generally accepted as legally valid reasoning.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

Thanks.

Mark

Why would it have to say that, precisely, in the Constitution? Do you have any idea how the Constitution works?

I do find freedom of religion as a principle tenet in it. But, I don't find anything at all written by the founders to exclude anyone from being in business if they have religious beliefs that they follow.

Mark

 

[Geaux4it]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

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

 

[80zephyr]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

Why couldn't you say a person's freedom of religion does not trump a person's right to marriage?

I said this:


In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.


If a conflict concerning rights happens, then the best way to solve it is to let each party retain their rights, and move on. Somebody doesn't want to bake a gay couple a cake? Fine. Get another baker.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The problem is that if we allow people to say they won't do business with gays because they don't agree with their lifestyle, that leaves the door open to not doing business with people because of race, age, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It will create an apartheid nation, sanctioned by the government. That's unacceptable.

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

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

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

This time its different. Homosexuality is a sin, according to the bible. Being "black" wasn't.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

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.

 

[bodecea]

Dear hazlnutbag,

How would an American mosque handle such a situation? Would the dykes stay alive long enough to claw their way out the exit door, do you think? And if the dykes spit on the teachings of Islam by demanding that Allah, Mohammed, and the mullah be damned, because queers are going to shit on every institution of religion every chance their mental illness lets them get away with it, what would the mullah do then? Blubber and moan and cave in to the dykes, do you think? Let's hear it asshole. What would a mullah do confronted by these scheming degenerates? Kill them? Yes, that's exactly what he'd do and every sissy in the land knows it. That's why they're such ******* cowards. Queers don't **** with Muslims, do they nutbag?

Ah yes...the "be thankful we don't treat you like Muslims do" gambit. As if that is a good thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Point taken, but at the same time, shouldn't business owners be allowed to do business with whom they choose to some extent? And if so to what extent?

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

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

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

This time its different. Homosexuality is a sin, according to the bible. Being "black" wasn't.

Mark

Um...interracial marriage was certainly considered a sin and people used the bible to justify both slavery and bans on interracial marriage.

I wonder if the business in the OP also tries to keep divorced people or fat people from having weddings. Aren't those "sins"?

 

[mdk]

I am fan of scrapping most PA laws with the exception of essential and vital services. Transportation, lodging, gas stations, etc. Let these businesses shout from the roof tops which segments of society they deem unworthy to serve. When boycotts arise and a disgusted public takes their business elsewhere they'll have no one to blame but themselves when these businesses fold. Let free marker decide if these business practices are worthy of our duckets.

 

[Geaux4it]

Depends on the business. If they're open to the public, they have to serve the public.

But surely there are some exceptions, even there? Ejecting a rowdy drunk from a bar, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", jacket and tie dress codes, etc. Where does one draw the line? Especially when you consider religious freedom is protected by the Bill of Rights?

To me it's not an especially simple issue and I think both sides have valid cases to be made.

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

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

 

[Seawytch]

Dear hazlnutbag,

How would an American mosque handle such a situation? Would the dykes stay alive long enough to claw their way out the exit door, do you think? And if the dykes spit on the teachings of Islam by demanding that Allah, Mohammed, and the mullah be damned, because queers are going to shit on every institution of religion every chance their mental illness lets them get away with it, what would the mullah do then? Blubber and moan and cave in to the dykes, do you think? Let's hear it asshole. What would a mullah do confronted by these scheming degenerates? Kill them? Yes, that's exactly what he'd do and every sissy in the land knows it. That's why they're such ******* cowards. Queers don't **** with Muslims, do they nutbag?

Ah yes...the "be thankful we don't treat you like Muslims do" gambit. As if that is a good thing.

And they do it with such glee...like they just wish they could treat their gays here the way Muslim countries do...

 

[bodecea]

This is the "America" that was ushered in with Obama's first coronation six years ago.

Before His grand entrance, a Gay couple would simply shop elsewhere.

Today, a Gay couple is still simply a Gay couple. What's changed?

"Acceptance" is no longer a two-way street. Respect of views and values, morals and mores, is now a one-way street. They have become mutually exclusive. To not participate based upon beliefs, religious or otherwise, now constitutes a "war". A war on women, a war on gays, a war on.... fill in the blank.

Obama has given marching papers to to his minions of all stripes and they are His foot soldiers. They are His fodder in these imaginary "wars".

It's like reverse McCarthyism run rampant.

**** this bullshit.

If people aren't free to be bigots to their fellow citizens, are any of us truly free?