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

[Skylar]

I wonder if any of the gay/libs in this thread support forcing muslim butchers to sell pork chops and bacon.

Do muslims butchers sell pork chops to ....anyone?

 

[martybegan]

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

Bigots embrace hatred. I, on the other hand, embrace liberty and equality.

Bigots have used the thin veneer of 'religion' to foment hate. Meanwhile, my understanding of religion is that of egalitarianism, love and peace.

Religion as an aegis for bigotry, is a perversion of religion.

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

 

[martybegan]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

In that case it was government mandated discrimination, which is what you are supporting now.

How is it discrimination to require a business to NOT discriminate?

you just don't get it

but why don't you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with an anti-gay baker.

Why did blacks want to sit at the Woolworth's lunch counter? They could get lunch elsewhere. Why does race, color, religion, country of origin and disability status have FEDERAL protection?

Again, woolworth was following local laws that mandated separate eating areas. and Again, if it involves government, then there should be no ability to discriminate.

 

[Mac1958]

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

Yep. The word has become diluted as badly as "racist".

.

 

[JoeB131]

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

again, Christians do "sinful" stuff all the time. this is about using religion to validate hate.

 

[martybegan]

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

They don't have to hide...puhleese. It doesn't go against anyone's beliefs to bake a ******* cake.

When I see these anti gay bigots refusing to bake cakes for divorced people or fatties, I'll be more inclined to believe their religiousosity.

Who the **** are you to decide what they consider moral? Who the **** are you to decide which tenets or all tenets of a religion that they have to follow? More importantly, why the **** should government act as an extension to your desire to punish others for this?

 

[martybegan]

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

again, Christians do "sinful" stuff all the time. this is about using religion to validate hate.

Again, you have turned the definition of "hate" to equal that of disagreeing with progressive asshats such as yourself.

Not wanting to attend a gay wedding because you find homosexuality sinful is not hate.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you have turned the definition of "hate" to equal that of disagreeing with progressive asshats such as yourself.

Not wanting to attend a gay wedding because you find homosexuality sinful is not hate.

but yet these same bakers, photographers and reception hall people will.

Host events/provide services for people who have been previously divorced.
Host events/provide services for people who lived together before they got married.
Host events/provide services for people who got married outside their church or at city hall.

So, no, it isn't the "sin" that bothers them. it's the homophobia.

Again, nothing a little "re-education" can't fix.

 

[martybegan]

Again, you have turned the definition of "hate" to equal that of disagreeing with progressive asshats such as yourself.

Not wanting to attend a gay wedding because you find homosexuality sinful is not hate.

but yet these same bakers, photographers and reception hall people will.

Host events/provide services for people who have been previously divorced.
Host events/provide services for people who lived together before they got married.
Host events/provide services for people who got married outside their church or at city hall.

So, no, it isn't the "sin" that bothers them. it's the homophobia.

Again, nothing a little "re-education" can't fix.

1. There are differing levels of sin. There is also forgiveness for past sins, however homosexuals do not think they are sinning, thus there is no request for forgiveness.

2. Who the **** are you to have a say in this?

3. Who the **** is government to have a say in this?

If those camps open, Joe will be one of those smiling guards standing over the pits with the bodies in it.

 

[Nosmo King]

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

Bigots embrace hatred. I, on the other hand, embrace liberty and equality.

Bigots have used the thin veneer of 'religion' to foment hate. Meanwhile, my understanding of religion is that of egalitarianism, love and peace.

Religion as an aegis for bigotry, is a perversion of religion.

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

Wedding vendors are not invited guests? All a wedding vendor has to do is provide the services they are contracted to supply. Refusing to provide said services on the grounds that your 'religion' prohibits business dealings with homosexuals is the topic, not participating in or attending the wedding. No florist is expected to do anything beyond providing floral arrangements. They don't bring a food processor wrapped in silver paper as a gift. Those florists aren't called upon to light a candle in the church or make a toast at the reception. They are expected to provide the same services at any other wedding they have been contracted for.

You have moved the goalposts and now claim wedding vendors as honored guests and participants.

 

[Seawytch]

First understand this: I am not Gay. I am an American citizen who will defend my fellow citizens against discrimination. There is simply no rationalization, no justification for an ignorant bigot to create a second class of citizen merely for his own amusement.

Bigots always wrap themselves in a concept that is foreign to them: civil rights. There is no right to belittle, discriminate and marginalized a group of law abiding citizens. There is no "right" to discriminate against folks who are sober, law abiding, mature paying customers simply because they belong to a group you don't understand.

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

They don't have to hide...puhleese. It doesn't go against anyone's beliefs to bake a ******* cake.

When I see these anti gay bigots refusing to bake cakes for divorced people or fatties, I'll be more inclined to believe their religiousosity.

Who the **** are you to decide what they consider moral? Who the **** are you to decide which tenets or all tenets of a religion that they have to follow? More importantly, why the **** should government act as an extension to your desire to punish others for this?

Oh, I'm not deciding, the locality in which they get their business license decides. If they open a business in a place with a non discrimination law, they don't discriminate or they suffer the consequences.

 

[Seawytch]

Again, you have turned the definition of "hate" to equal that of disagreeing with progressive asshats such as yourself.

Not wanting to attend a gay wedding because you find homosexuality sinful is not hate.

but yet these same bakers, photographers and reception hall people will.

Host events/provide services for people who have been previously divorced.
Host events/provide services for people who lived together before they got married.
Host events/provide services for people who got married outside their church or at city hall.

So, no, it isn't the "sin" that bothers them. it's the homophobia.

Again, nothing a little "re-education" can't fix.

1. There are differing levels of sin. There is also forgiveness for past sins, however homosexuals do not think they are sinning, thus there is no request for forgiveness.

2. Who the **** are you to have a say in this?

3. Who the **** is government to have a say in this?

If those camps open, Joe will be one of those smiling guards standing over the pits with the bodies in it.

Really? The bible grades sin?

When I see these anti gay bigots refuse to perform a service for a fatty or a divorcee, I'll be more inclined to believe their godliness.

 

[martybegan]

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

Bigots embrace hatred. I, on the other hand, embrace liberty and equality.

Bigots have used the thin veneer of 'religion' to foment hate. Meanwhile, my understanding of religion is that of egalitarianism, love and peace.

Religion as an aegis for bigotry, is a perversion of religion.

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

Wedding vendors are not invited guests? All a wedding vendor has to do is provide the services they are contracted to supply. Refusing to provide said services on the grounds that your 'religion' prohibits business dealings with homosexuals is the topic, not participating in or attending the wedding. No florist is expected to do anything beyond providing floral arrangements. They don't bring a food processor wrapped in silver paper as a gift. Those florists aren't called upon to light a candle in the church or make a toast at the reception. They are expected to provide the same services at any other wedding they have been contracted for.

You have moved the goalposts and now claim wedding vendors as honored guests and participants.

They attend, their products are services are provided for a celebration of something they find sinful. Why you people hang up on it being a business vs. a private person is beyond me. You are forcing someone to do something they do not want to do by government fiat.

Lets use an argumentum ad absurdum example. Would a religious store be forced to sell a statue a Jesus to a Satanist who has stated his intent to defecate on the statue and smash it into bits afterwards?

 

[martybegan]

Again, you have turned the definition of "hate" to equal that of disagreeing with progressive asshats such as yourself.

Not wanting to attend a gay wedding because you find homosexuality sinful is not hate.

but yet these same bakers, photographers and reception hall people will.

Host events/provide services for people who have been previously divorced.
Host events/provide services for people who lived together before they got married.
Host events/provide services for people who got married outside their church or at city hall.

So, no, it isn't the "sin" that bothers them. it's the homophobia.

Again, nothing a little "re-education" can't fix.

1. There are differing levels of sin. There is also forgiveness for past sins, however homosexuals do not think they are sinning, thus there is no request for forgiveness.

2. Who the **** are you to have a say in this?

3. Who the **** is government to have a say in this?

If those camps open, Joe will be one of those smiling guards standing over the pits with the bodies in it.

Really? The bible grades sin?

When I see these anti gay bigots refuse to perform a service for a fatty or a divorcee, I'll be more inclined to believe their godliness.

again, who the **** are you to judge them? or to force them to follow your moral compass via government fiat?

 

[JoeB131]

1. There are differing levels of sin. There is also forgiveness for past sins, however homosexuals do not think they are sinning, thus there is no request for forgiveness.

People who live together don't think they are "sinning". People who kicked that rat bastard to the curb despite the "to death do we part" thing don't think they are sinning. And the Church doesn't press them on the issue as long as they get their money.

2. Who the **** are you to have a say in this?

3. Who the **** is government to have a say in this?

The government regulates commerce. Therefore, they have a say, and PA laws were litigated 50 years ago.

If those camps open, Joe will be one of those smiling guards standing over the pits with the bodies in it.

Naw. Then we won't get you to admit how wrong you were.

 

[martybegan]

You just choose to discriminate against religious folks, and you use big daddy government to do it.

It makes you a statist, and a coward.

I defend the religious. I oppose bigots. Religion provides no cover for bigotry.

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

They don't have to hide...puhleese. It doesn't go against anyone's beliefs to bake a ******* cake.

When I see these anti gay bigots refusing to bake cakes for divorced people or fatties, I'll be more inclined to believe their religiousosity.

Who the **** are you to decide what they consider moral? Who the **** are you to decide which tenets or all tenets of a religion that they have to follow? More importantly, why the **** should government act as an extension to your desire to punish others for this?

Oh, I'm not deciding, the locality in which they get their business license decides. If they open a business in a place with a non discrimination law, they don't discriminate or they suffer the consequences.

No, your support of said policy means you own it. "The not by my hand" argument shows you to be the chickenshit coward we all know and can't stand.

 

[Seawytch]

My question is if 8 out of 10 provide the service they are looking for, then why continue to insist the remaining 2 comply? I get it... Gays are Rosa Parks in drag

-Geaux

We can ask the same of any black person looking to be served lunch in the 50s....why didn't they just go to the places that served black people...why did they have to stir up trouble by going to Woolworths lunch counters?

Its astonishing how much of the anti-gay rhetoric is just the anti-black rhetoric of the 50s and 60s with a few vocab words changed.

Its like Mad Libs for bigots.

Yup...this guy gave a speech the anti gay bigots will applaud...until he gets to the end.

 

[JoeB131]

They attend, their products are services are provided for a celebration of something they find sinful. Why you people hang up on it being a business vs. a private person is beyond me. You are forcing someone to do something they do not want to do by government fiat.

There's whole lot of stuff the government makes me do I don't want to. It's called, "Living in a civilized society".

 

[martybegan]

1. There are differing levels of sin. There is also forgiveness for past sins, however homosexuals do not think they are sinning, thus there is no request for forgiveness.

People who live together don't think they are "sinning". People who kicked that rat bastard to the curb despite the "to death do we part" thing don't think they are sinning. And the Church doesn't press them on the issue as long as they get their money.

2. Who the **** are you to have a say in this?

3. Who the **** is government to have a say in this?

The government regulates commerce. Therefore, they have a say, and PA laws were litigated 50 years ago.

If those camps open, Joe will be one of those smiling guards standing over the pits with the bodies in it.

Naw. Then we won't get you to admit how wrong you were.

Again, those people may seek forgiveness for past trangressions. The only way homosexuals can seek and get forgiveness is to stop performing homosexual acts.

and I love your internet tough guy posts, You can mouth off all you want without having to back it up like the cowardly **** you are.

 

[martybegan]

They attend, their products are services are provided for a celebration of something they find sinful. Why you people hang up on it being a business vs. a private person is beyond me. You are forcing someone to do something they do not want to do by government fiat.

There's whole lot of stuff the government makes me do I don't want to. It's called, "Living in a civilized society".

A society that forces morality for chickenshit stuff like this is not civilized.