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

[Dana7360]

But it is VERY cool to know that the Militant Advocates of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality have no problem trying to FORCE people to into servitude through the illicit use of police powers.

You can NOT hide a fascist!

No more so than when 'no blacks served at this lunch counter' was found to be a violation of the law.

Which of those black folks chose to "BE BLACK"?

Homosexuality isn't a choice.

People are born that way.

 

[Dana7360]

Do you know what the word "homophobe" means? Just because someone does not want to host a gay ceremony at their business, on their property, does not even remotely make them a "homophobe."

It's hard to have a rational dialogue when you start the conversation with over-heated rhetoric like "ignorant" and "homophobes."

I'd be curious to see what would happen if gays started targeting Orthodox Jewish synagogues to try to force them to host gay ceremonies.

Or, if gays started targeting Muslim mosques to try to force them to host gay ceremonies.

It'd be interesting to see how the Left would spin things when those synagogues and mosques resisted being forced to hold ceremonies that they found morally offensive.

I'd like to see the Left try to smear Holocaust survivors and their children as "homophones" simply because they did not want to be forced to host a ceremony that they found morally objectionable.

Excuse me but churches, mosques and synagogues are exempted from PA laws. They're actually real establishments of worship. They aren't businesses.

When they stop being establishments of worship and become businesses, then you'll have something logical and reasonable to say.

Until then, you're bringing up situations that can never happen because establishments of worship are exempted from PA laws.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Liberals just love it when people are punished over the right to association. It's one of liberals most hated items. They attack ALL the time. In no way do liberals advocate freedom of association. But they will tell you they are the philosophy of liberty!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me because I'm gay, I shouldn't have to serve a Christian.

Yep!

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

.

Except that's not true. You can't refuse service to "anyone".

I cannot refuse to serve someone who is black or Christian in all 50 states. I can be refused service in probably half or more.

Come on, let's not base this discussion on laws. If you were so concerned about laws I bet your take on illegal immigration would be entirely different.

Yes?

If someone refused service to me for any reason (gender, sexual orientation, religion/lack thereof, race, clothing, shoes, you name it), or if I were with you and you were refused service for any reason, I would walk out and go somewhere else. **** them (truth be told, I'm so fucked up that I would probably try to engage them in civil conversation about their reasoning, but that's just me). I wouldn't want to give such an asshole my business anyway. But this is America, and assholes are allowed.

Then I'd probably tell my friends when the topic came up so that they would know, too. They wouldn't give him their business either, I'd betcha.

Then I'd get on with my life, because I'm not one who likes to intimidate, punish and control others simply because I think they're assholes.

.

NO! NO NO NO NO NO!

NOOOOOOOOOO!

I wont get on with life and I will scream, cry and kick dust until the nanny state steps in and FORCES these folks to do what I think is right with their property and selves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But it is VERY cool to know that the Militant Advocates of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality have no problem trying to FORCE people to into servitude through the illicit use of police powers.

You can NOT hide a fascist!

No more so than when 'no blacks served at this lunch counter' was found to be a violation of the law.

Which of those black folks chose to "BE BLACK"?

Homosexuality isn't a choice.

People are born that way.

Are they?

And you're basing this upon what: SPECIFICALLY?

We know that despite the hysterical effort to find a genetic component and after the failure to do THAT, the equally hysterical effort to rationalize some medical 'predisposition', but to date, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that anyone has ever been "BORN" a sexual deviant.

Now, if you're keeping score, THAT MEANS that since people are NOT "BORN GAY", that means that the GAY thing came along AFTER they were born... . Which pretty much leaves two possibilities:

1- Environmental; wherein external competitive forces trigger the hormonal soup that sends them scurrying toward others of the same gender for sexual gratification; such as is the case in prison... where homosexual behavior is incontestably shown to spike.

2- Environmental; wherein a person who has already succumbed to the perverse reasoning, molests a pre-pubescent child, in a "Loving and Caring (read: careful) sexual relationship" with an adult of the same gender, which prematurely stirs sexual hormonal triggers in the infant/toddler child, imprinting the sexual trigger toward those of the same gender.

But please, if you've evidence which shows the every so elusive 'genetic component' intrinsic to sexual abnormality, you be sure to post it right up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But it is VERY cool to know that the Militant Advocates of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality have no problem trying to FORCE people to into servitude through the illicit use of police powers.

You can NOT hide a fascist!

No more so than when 'no blacks served at this lunch counter' was found to be a violation of the law.

Which of those black folks chose to "BE BLACK"?

And how is 'choice' a standard of the protection of rights? Religion is a choice. But you can't deny a seat to Catholics or Muslims at the lunch counter either.

Next excuse.

Well, it's a fundamental tenet of western juris prudence.

For instance, where on CHOOSES to steal property, because one 'feels' that their need for the property supersedes the other's right to it, we, as a free people determine that THAT CHOICE is a threat to our freedom. We further recognize that that CHOICE represents the failure of the person MAKING THE CHOICE to REJECT THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN SUSTAINING THEIR RIGHT TO REMAIN FREE... thus THEIR CHOICE HAS RESULTING IN THEIR HAVING FORFEITED THIER MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS... resulting on our decision to strip them entirely of that means.

See how that works?

Same goes for the choice to shove perverse reasoning into our governance.

You erroneously feel that because we have not taken action to strip you of your means to exercise your rights that such cannot happen.

I suggest you think harder on that... and find the strength of character to recognize that you idiots have once again overstepped your projections on how popular you are.

We laugh at the programming on TV which seeks to show that sexual deviants are people too... and we accept you as people. We'll sit down and break bread with you, trade with you and treat you like reasonable people, but that does NOT mean that we're going to allow you to further advance your perversions.

The Party is over scamp... it ended on election day.

The "Gay Marriage" crap died that day. You best come to grips with that... before you push yourself and your cult over a line... across which you cannot go back.

No one here wants to go there... myself not being the least of those who want to live within a culture wherein we do not have to take hard-lines on an entire people, because a mouthy minority of them lack the means to reason sufficiently to make that a necessity.

And you would be doing yourself a favor to pass that along to your sisters of the traveling Muslim-pants.

 

[martybegan]

They would be wrong.

There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.

Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?

They would be wrong.

There are no rational people out there saying the Bible advocates or approves of a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible's view on race has had a preponderance of people saying it is either neutral on it, or supportive of equality or at least tolerance among the races. The justification of slavery/racism via the bible was an aberration among white southern baptists in response to the abolitionist position of slave-owning as sinful.

Islam is even more clear that racism is wrong, but even more clear that homosexuality is wrong as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?

What it does is prevents you from bringing up the whole racism thing as a valid argument. Racism is not condoned in the bible. Homosexuality is condemned in plain text.

Your fetishes for forcing people to accept you need some other basis, you can't keep using the one you are using without looking stupid.

It's valid even though it makes you uncomfortable. They have just as much biblical justification as you do.

They have none, and have been repeatedly beaten down by decades of theological debate. They have as much of a right to say a blue book is orange as they do to say the bible condones racism, but it does not give them a valid argument.

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

 

[martybegan]

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

So it would NOT be illegal for a christian business to deny services to a muslim or a jew or an atheist?

As long as the government is not the business or the business is doing government work, it shouldn't be.

 

[martybegan]

It does call certain activities a sin, and most say supporting a sin can be just as bad as acting on one. These are established belief structures that are protected by the US constitution. Protections you evidently don't like, and thus feel the need to squash by any means available.

How Fascist of you.

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

 

[JoeB131]

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

Eating pork is a sin.
Working on Sunday is a sin.

Yet 'the faithful' make all sorts of exceptions to those rules when it suits them.

 

[martybegan]

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

Eating pork is a sin.
Working on Sunday is a sin.

Yet 'the faithful' make all sorts of exceptions to those rules when it suits them.

That's between them and God. Its not for government to decide which sins are worse.

and for Christians neither is a sin usually.

 

[JoeB131]

That's between them and God. Its not for government to decide which sins are worse.

and for Christians neither is a sin usually.

Exactly. They ignore the parts of the Bible that don't work for their life, but they are happy to invoke the bible to rationalize their homophobia.

No, it's not the job of the government to decide which sins are worse. It is the government's job to make sure that all citizens have access to businesses as public accommedations. Happy to have cleared that up for you.

 

[martybegan]

That's between them and God. Its not for government to decide which sins are worse.

and for Christians neither is a sin usually.

Exactly. They ignore the parts of the Bible that don't work for their life, but they are happy to invoke the bible to rationalize their homophobia.

No, it's not the job of the government to decide which sins are worse. It is the government's job to make sure that all citizens have access to businesses as public accommedations. Happy to have cleared that up for you.

Its not the government's job to involve itself in something as trivial as where a wedding is going to be, or who provides your cake for your wedding. PA laws were considered for necessities, for stopping a bus full of blacks from being denied rooms at hotels, not because some gay people had their feewings hurt.

And Christians do not ignore those parts of the bible. The prohibition on pork in the OT is changed by Act 10: 9-16. As for Sunday, Collosians 2: 16-17 addresses that (and the pork thing as well)/

 

[Seawytch]

Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?

Again, it doesn't matter what YOU think, they know they are just as right about it being a sin as you think you are. Do they get religious exemptions from PA laws too or just people that hate the gays?

What it does is prevents you from bringing up the whole racism thing as a valid argument. Racism is not condoned in the bible. Homosexuality is condemned in plain text.

Your fetishes for forcing people to accept you need some other basis, you can't keep using the one you are using without looking stupid.

It's valid even though it makes you uncomfortable. They have just as much biblical justification as you do.

They have none, and have been repeatedly beaten down by decades of theological debate. They have as much of a right to say a blue book is orange as they do to say the bible condones racism, but it does not give them a valid argument.

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

 

[JoeB131]

Its not the government's job to involve itself in something as trivial as where a wedding is going to be, or who provides your cake for your wedding. PA laws were considered for necessities, for stopping a bus full of blacks from being denied rooms at hotels, not because some gay people had their feewings hurt.

And Christians do not ignore those parts of the bible. The prohibition on pork in the OT is changed by Act 10: 9-16. As for Sunday, Collosians 2: 16-17 addresses that (and the pork thing as well)/

Please point out where the PA laws say, "necessities only". thanks.

As for OT Prohibtions - you guys can't agree amongst yourselves on that. The Seventh Day Adventists are taking that shit totally seriously.

2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. I'm not seeing where it says that you get a pass on the Fourth Commandment here. BUt let's go to the Second Commandment - No Graven Images. The Catholics must have missed that memo. Catholic done love their graven images. Right after the nun who said that God drowned wicked babies, it was my first inkling these people were probably full of shit. So, sorry, dude, quit using Jesus to excuse your homophobia.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Nosmo King]

The same warped Biblical quotations were used as cover for racists in the Jim Crow days.

Is this your paradigm of religious freedom?

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Public accommodations using someone's private property and time. That's funny, Job.

 

[martybegan]

What it does is prevents you from bringing up the whole racism thing as a valid argument. Racism is not condoned in the bible. Homosexuality is condemned in plain text.

Your fetishes for forcing people to accept you need some other basis, you can't keep using the one you are using without looking stupid.

It's valid even though it makes you uncomfortable. They have just as much biblical justification as you do.

They have none, and have been repeatedly beaten down by decades of theological debate. They have as much of a right to say a blue book is orange as they do to say the bible condones racism, but it does not give them a valid argument.

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

 

[martybegan]

The use of the bible as a basis for slavery/racism has been debated by theologians to the point where an infinitesimal number of people subscribe to it. I equate it to finding people who will call a black covered book a white covered book. The considering of homosexual acts as both sinful and bad for society however, is quite clear and literal.

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

Then every religion is wrong by your logic, and Churches should be forced to accommodate the same thing. If you are going to ignore people's rights and force them to accept something you want them to accept, why stop there?

Just because something is "wrong", then the power of the State must be used to punish these people? That's statism, fascism, and THAT is whats wrong.

The worst thing is its basically bullying, and because you agree with it, you cheer it on. You make me sick.

 

[martybegan]

Its not the government's job to involve itself in something as trivial as where a wedding is going to be, or who provides your cake for your wedding. PA laws were considered for necessities, for stopping a bus full of blacks from being denied rooms at hotels, not because some gay people had their feewings hurt.

And Christians do not ignore those parts of the bible. The prohibition on pork in the OT is changed by Act 10: 9-16. As for Sunday, Collosians 2: 16-17 addresses that (and the pork thing as well)/

Please point out where the PA laws say, "necessities only". thanks.

As for OT Prohibtions - you guys can't agree amongst yourselves on that. The Seventh Day Adventists are taking that shit totally seriously.

2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. I'm not seeing where it says that you get a pass on the Fourth Commandment here. BUt let's go to the Second Commandment - No Graven Images. The Catholics must have missed that memo. Catholic done love their graven images. Right after the nun who said that God drowned wicked babies, it was my first inkling these people were probably full of shit. So, sorry, dude, quit using Jesus to excuse your homophobia.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Again, not for government to decide. Yes, some are more hard core than others, but all of them agree that homosexuality is sinful.