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

[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.

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

 

[bodecea]

I am still waiting for one of you gay/libs to explain why you would want an anti-gay baker to make your wedding cake. I am sure you could find a baker who has no problem with gay marriage. Why would you want to give your business to someone who does not approve of your lifestyle? Why would you want to increase his profit?

I know the answer, I just wish that one of you would be honest enough to answer it truthfully.

What evidence do you have that the couple KNEW that baker was an "anti-gay baker" when they went in to order their wedding cake?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

When Whites ran Jim Crow in the south, they used a twisted, perverted interpretation of scripture to justify their own vile behavior. We've seen this movie before. That previous generation of idiots, bigots and haters found that by creating second class citizens ran headlong into the constitution of the United States of America.

What's so different today? The Gays are the last group that somehow segments of low brow society feels it's okay to discriminate against. Well, it's not okay. It has never been okay and now that low brow, low rent, low intellectual class of bigots are finding that their hate does not make for a stronger society. On the contrary , their vile behavior divides society along family lines. Their actions are reprehensible and should not be tolerated. Their 'religion' is false doctrine and should not be respected as cover for their own disgusting behavior.

 

[kaz]

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

You are an advertisement that maybe discriminating against fags isn't entirely a bad idea. It's not like they were Jews, that discrimination would have been OK, wouldn't it gay boy?

Ironically, Kaz, if that couple had done the same thing to a Jewish couple, the state of NY would have fined them just the same.

That wasn't the point. The fine was an abomination to a free people. You are authoritarian leftists, not liberals. Forcing people to do business with each other is the reverse of freedom. Most people don't care about gay, they care about green. The insistence to force the bigots is just sick frankly.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

Doncha wish gun shop owners had the same level of concern and conscience?

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

When Whites ran Jim Crow in the south, they used a twisted, perverted interpretation of scripture to justify their own vile behavior. We've seen this movie before. That previous generation of idiots, bigots and haters found that by creating second class citizens ran headlong into the constitution of the United States of America.

What's so different today? The Gays are the last group that somehow segments of low brow society feels it's okay to discriminate against. Well, it's not okay. It has never been okay and now that low brow, low rent, low intellectual class of bigots are finding that their hate does not make for a stronger society. On the contrary , their vile behavior divides society along family lines. Their actions are reprehensible and should not be tolerated. Their 'religion' is false doctrine and should not be respected as cover for their own disgusting behavior.

Jim Crow was government forcing businesses to not do business with people. This is government forcing businesses to do business with people. Both are ridiculous, let's go with freedom. Government proves over and over again that it's the problem.

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

Doncha wish gun shop owners had the same level of concern and conscience?

I'd like more of my competitors to not want to do business with people. I could use the extra work.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

You are an advertisement that maybe discriminating against fags isn't entirely a bad idea. It's not like they were Jews, that discrimination would have been OK, wouldn't it gay boy?

Ironically, Kaz, if that couple had done the same thing to a Jewish couple, the state of NY would have fined them just the same.

That wasn't the point. The fine was an abomination to a free people. You are authoritarian leftists, not liberals. Forcing people to do business with each other is the reverse of freedom. Most people don't care about gay, they care about green. The insistence to force the bigots is just sick frankly.

Who's in the right? A same sex couple wanting to plan their dream wedding, or an ignorant bigot who thinks he'll be tainted by the sale?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays could not have a wedding at this location prior to the complaint. They cannot have their wedding at this location now. What was gained? What changed? How is it better or even different?

Gays have done nothing except have businesses change some business practices. They still can't get unwilling bakers make their wedding cakes or unwilling photographers make them albums.

Already answered, truth in advertizing and business modeling. If you are going to put yourself out to the public as selling goods 1,2,3 and services X,Y,Z then the law required them to provide the goods and services you say you will offer in a non-discriminatory many as defined by the PA laws. If the business decides not to offer those goods and services to anyone - they can do that.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

No business has been asked or required to sell a product they do not carry. Yours is a strawman.

Wedding cake #3 is wedding cake #3.

You have demanded that people be forced by law to perform homosexual weddings, against their religious beliefs. You argue that since the perform normal weddings, they are your slave and you have the right to force them to do your bidding.

This is no different at all than claiming that since a Halal butcher sells other meats, I can force them to my will to sell me pork.

Instead of accepting equal rights, you decided to infringe the rights of others.

You have overplayed your hand- you have lost the support of many civil libertarians.

Wrong....your post Fails from the very first sentence.

 

[kaz]

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

You are an advertisement that maybe discriminating against fags isn't entirely a bad idea. It's not like they were Jews, that discrimination would have been OK, wouldn't it gay boy?

Ironically, Kaz, if that couple had done the same thing to a Jewish couple, the state of NY would have fined them just the same.

That wasn't the point. The fine was an abomination to a free people. You are authoritarian leftists, not liberals. Forcing people to do business with each other is the reverse of freedom. Most people don't care about gay, they care about green. The insistence to force the bigots is just sick frankly.

Who's in the right? A same sex couple wanting to plan their dream wedding, or an ignorant bigot who thinks he'll be tainted by the sale?

You fundamentally don't understand liberty. Here's a hint, liberty is people making their own choices, not you making it for them. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

As for your question, the "moral" right goes to the former and the "legal" right goes to the latter.

Tell me again how you're against government legislating morality....

 

[bodecea]

And who makes that call? You?

Its pretty simple to figure out, and THAT is why we have courts, to interpret law, not create law.

Marty, New York's anti-discrimination law that covers age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability was created by the Legislature and not the courts.



>>>>

and when they interpret everything under the sun to be a public accommodation, that's where they can be blamed.

The LEGISLATURE, not the court, included the language in New York's Pubic Accommodation Law defining a place of Public Accommodation to be "wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind" - NOT the court.

The court is not to blame for applying the law that the legislature wrote, which is what you claimed.

and since creed is included how is this not all discriminating against people based on religion? Oh yes, the whole "if you own a business you lose your rights" clause of the constitution, i forgot about that one.

Are there certain religions that are exempt and yet other are not? That would be unconstitutional, however the law is applied equally for all businesses.


>>>>

The law is stupid, but hey, this is NY so stupidity is expected.

I just can't wait for a Christian Identity person to go to a black baker and ask for a "I hate *******" cake.

First of all....if the black baker refuses him, he is subject to the same PA (public accomodation) law. But, your analogy is flawed. No gay couple went to a Christian baker and asked for an "I hate Christians" cake.

You keep coming up with flawed analogies. Reason? Because you have a flawed argument.

 

[bodecea]

You know it was not a case of "winning" anything, right?

You seek to crush civil rights.

You are at war to end 1st Amendment protections of those rights - you certainly seek to win that war.

The civil rights to do what? Discriminate against your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. How sad to want that to be a "civil right".

 

[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.

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

Doncha wish gun shop owners had the same level of concern and conscience?

How do gunshops come into play? Is this some sad pathetic attempt at a progressive "gotcha?"

 

[martybegan]

You know it was not a case of "winning" anything, right?

You seek to crush civil rights.

You are at war to end 1st Amendment protections of those rights - you certainly seek to win that war.

The civil rights to do what? Discriminate against your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. How sad to want that to be a "civil right".

Civil rights are about government interaction with its citizens, since when does it involve private interactions?

 

[bodecea]

Nobody has been asked or required to provide a service they do not. A cake is a cake. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. Same flour, eggs and sugar.

First off, read the OP - this is not about a cake, it is about forcing unwilling people to violate their religious beliefs and perform a wedding for lesbians.

Now meat is meat - but yet you hesitate to offend your allies by demanding that Muslims be forced to sell pork.

Race, color, nation of origin and religion all have the protection of Public Accommodation laws. It is not suddenly "tyranny" if gays are ALSO protected in SOME places.

There are plenty of places happy to cater to homosexuals - this couple deliberately targeted this farm for the purpose of infringing their rights - to make the point that others have no rights. This isn't the first time, but in fact a pattern.

You've overplayed your hand, and are just now beginning to see the backlash to your war on civil rights.

They were not "performing the wedding." They were providing the venue....which is THEIR BUSINESS, with a NY state business license.

 

[martybegan]

Its pretty simple to figure out, and THAT is why we have courts, to interpret law, not create law.

Marty, New York's anti-discrimination law that covers age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability was created by the Legislature and not the courts.



>>>>

and when they interpret everything under the sun to be a public accommodation, that's where they can be blamed.

The LEGISLATURE, not the court, included the language in New York's Pubic Accommodation Law defining a place of Public Accommodation to be "wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind" - NOT the court.

The court is not to blame for applying the law that the legislature wrote, which is what you claimed.

and since creed is included how is this not all discriminating against people based on religion? Oh yes, the whole "if you own a business you lose your rights" clause of the constitution, i forgot about that one.

Are there certain religions that are exempt and yet other are not? That would be unconstitutional, however the law is applied equally for all businesses.


>>>>

The law is stupid, but hey, this is NY so stupidity is expected.

I just can't wait for a Christian Identity person to go to a black baker and ask for a "I hate *******" cake.

First of all....if the black baker refuses him, he is subject to the same PA (public accomodation) law. But, your analogy is flawed. No gay couple went to a Christian baker and asked for an "I hate Christians" cake.

You keep coming up with flawed analogies. Reason? Because you have a flawed argument.

Fine, the baker would have to deliver it to the hall where a CI meeting was held, and stick around to make sure everything went off OK.

Lets change it from "I hate *******" to "CI rules!!!!"

 

[martybegan]

Nobody has been asked or required to provide a service they do not. A cake is a cake. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. Same flour, eggs and sugar.

First off, read the OP - this is not about a cake, it is about forcing unwilling people to violate their religious beliefs and perform a wedding for lesbians.

Now meat is meat - but yet you hesitate to offend your allies by demanding that Muslims be forced to sell pork.

Race, color, nation of origin and religion all have the protection of Public Accommodation laws. It is not suddenly "tyranny" if gays are ALSO protected in SOME places.

There are plenty of places happy to cater to homosexuals - this couple deliberately targeted this farm for the purpose of infringing their rights - to make the point that others have no rights. This isn't the first time, but in fact a pattern.

You've overplayed your hand, and are just now beginning to see the backlash to your war on civil rights.

They were not "performing the wedding." They were providing the venue....which is THEIR BUSINESS, with a NY state business license.

I expect you to then support nazi meetings at black meeting halls.

 

[bodecea]

You know it was not a case of "winning" anything, right?

You seek to crush civil rights.

You are at war to end 1st Amendment protections of those rights - you certainly seek to win that war.

The civil rights to do what? Discriminate against your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. How sad to want that to be a "civil right".

Civil rights are about government interaction with its citizens, since when does it involve private interactions?

Again...this was not a private interaction. It would be a private interaction if it was not a public business with a NY state business license.

 

[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.

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?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?

The business owners bears the responsibility to themselves and to their God if they knowingly sell something they know will be desecrated, just like they may feel responsible morally for contributing or participating in something they find immoral. Why should it be up to government to force them to either acquiesce or perish? Why is having a certain baker/hall/photographer so important that we have to threaten people with massive fines to force compliance?

I don't care what motivates these people to not want to participate in this stuff. What i care about is assholes like you who feel you have the right to use government to force them to accept YOUR moral compass over theirs or face government mandated repercussions.

When Whites ran Jim Crow in the south, they used a twisted, perverted interpretation of scripture to justify their own vile behavior. We've seen this movie before. That previous generation of idiots, bigots and haters found that by creating second class citizens ran headlong into the constitution of the United States of America.

What's so different today? The Gays are the last group that somehow segments of low brow society feels it's okay to discriminate against. Well, it's not okay. It has never been okay and now that low brow, low rent, low intellectual class of bigots are finding that their hate does not make for a stronger society. On the contrary , their vile behavior divides society along family lines. Their actions are reprehensible and should not be tolerated. Their 'religion' is false doctrine and should not be respected as cover for their own disgusting behavior.

Jim Crow was mandated by the government, what you support is the same thing, except forcing people to business a certain way instead of forcing them to not do business a certain way.

How does it feel to use the same government mechanism as segregationists?