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

[Seawytch]

I have absolutely no idea why the RW has this reputation for being racist.

That you thought his reply racist is exactly why we call you "short bus."

That you don't think it was racist is part of the GOPs problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
That you don't think it was racist is part of the GOPs problem.

That you are stupid as a brick is the GOP's problem?

You may be right.

 

[Seawytch]

[
That you don't think it was racist is part of the GOPs problem.

That you are stupid as a brick is the GOP's problem?

You may be right.

Oh, do please go with "people aren't republican because they're stupid". That should serve ya'll well in 2016.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, do please go with "people aren't republican because they're stupid". That should serve ya'll well in 2016.

I'm not a Republican, but leftism does appear to be predicated upon stupidity. The idea that you can live off of the efforts and intellect of others, that you have the right to feast on the product of your superiors with no return effort is not the product of a superlative mind.

yanowatimeen?

 

[bodecea]

I have absolutely no idea why the RW has this reputation for being racist.

That you thought his reply racist is exactly why we call you "short bus."

You seem to have comprehension problems there, Uncensored. When did I point the finger and say his post was racist? I VERY CLEARLY said that I cannot understand why the RW has this reputation for being racist.

 

[Redfish]

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?

what difference does it make? where have we heard that before???? LOL

Once he told them he was not interested in baking their cake that should have given them a clue.

 

[Redfish]

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.

thats what this is really about, government mandated thought control and punishment for violating the government definition of political correctness.

it amazes me that the libs cannot see this for what it is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You seem to have comprehension problems there, Uncensored. When did I point the finger and say his post was racist? I VERY CLEARLY said that I cannot understand why the RW has this reputation for being racist.

Yeah, the sarcasm was too hard to catch....

You did what leftsts do, avoided fact and reality by hurling the magic epithet RACIST....

 

[Nosmo King]

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?"

Well that allegedly "Christian" bookstore owner cared so much about how his mercha

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....

Does a bus line have the right to refuse service to any group they find objectionable, even if no one has committed any crimes?

Didn't follow my post, did you Rover? BTW, the bus line didn't refuse service to anyone, government forced them to discriminate against blacks. They were actually against it, blacks were their best customers. You got anything actually regarding the point I made?

Yeah, I do. Liberty means not being repressed anywhere in public society. Freedom means so long as you aren't committing a crime or acting unruly, an individual can act, shop, invest, renew, improve and, indeed, fail as an equal participant in his community. That freedom from second class citizenship at the hands of businesses open to the public amounts to true Liberty.

Why, in a society billing itself as the 'Greatest on Earth", would it be right fit to erode one citizen's Libery by allowing an idiot to call the tune? Why does a bigot's 'rights' trump the right of an American citizens to shop at public stores?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

thats what this is really about, government mandated thought control and punishment for violating the government definition of political correctness.

it amazes me that the libs cannot see this for what it is.

I'll wager that you've heard the expression 'Your rights extend from the tip of your finger to the tip of your neighbor's nose'. In other words, your rights do not include eroding mine.

What effect do you suppose being discriminated against bring? Can you imagine a world where you yourself might be turned away simply because of who you are? At a small, hometown business, what would you feel about being told 'No' for some immutable reason about your physical status, your race, your nation of origin or, your most personal attribute, your sexuality?

If it's still hip to slam gays, do you think it's right to similarly slam any other group?

Conservatives always strive to keep the division going. They put up the resistence to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and worker's rights. Is it any surprise they will defend a bigot over a homosexual?

 

[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?

what difference does it make? where have we heard that before???? LOL

Once he told them he was not interested in baking their cake that should have given them a clue.

So...if you go into a store and they say they don't serve your kind, you just quietly take it and leave? No wonder you get beat up for your lunch money all the time.

 

[bodecea]

You seem to have comprehension problems there, Uncensored. When did I point the finger and say his post was racist? I VERY CLEARLY said that I cannot understand why the RW has this reputation for being racist.

Yeah, the sarcasm was too hard to catch....

You did what leftsts do, avoided fact and reality by hurling the magic epithet RACIST....

I hurled no such thing....I VERY CLEARLY stated that I cannot understand why the RW has this reputation for being racist. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You seem to have comprehension problems there, Uncensored. When did I point the finger and say his post was racist? I VERY CLEARLY said that I cannot understand why the RW has this reputation for being racist.

Yeah, the sarcasm was too hard to catch....

You did what leftsts do, avoided fact and reality by hurling the magic epithet RACIST....

I hurled no such thing....I VERY CLEARLY stated that I cannot understand why the RW has this reputation for being racist. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why.

You're not clever.

 

[JoeB131]

The only thing I hate is people using government to force others to do things they don't want to do when it comes to non essential chickenshit like this.

A person providing a wedding cake is providing a direct service, not just baking 20 cakes and putting them on a display. In that case the person's sexuality would never even come up.

the owner of that business has no problem demanding police and fire protection, secure bank accounts insured by the government to do transactions, roads so customers can get to his shop, infrastructure to provide gas, water and electricity to his shop, and all the other accurements of civilization to make his business possible.

I mean, seriously, putting young couples thousands of dollars into debt when they are just starting out is probably not what Jesus had in mind, but man, don't force them to provide services to homos.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I thought we were being very clear. YOu can be a bigot. Your business cannot. Not as long as the rest of us are paying for the infrastructure to make your business possible.

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION- if the rest of us pay for your business to be there, then you have to be ready to serve us when we ask.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

except they weren't performing a wedding, they were renting a reception hall.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

NO, sick is beating up a gay man on the street because you don't like him.

Sick is firing a person who worked for you for 15 years because she attended a company event with her life partner.

Making you provide goods and services YOU OFFERED FOR SALE is not an abomination. It's the law, and it has been for 50 years.

 

[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.



>>>>

Then you agree. Gays achieved absolutely nothing . They got their names in the paper.

Saying the opposite of what I said and then claiming victory isn't a very honorable way to react to a question that you asked and I answered - twice.


>>>>

 

[Geaux4it]

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

Would you put up with 8 in 10 lunch counters serving blacks? Only 8 in 10 gas stations serving Christians?

Gays aren't looking for anything but to be treated equally and with basic human respect.

I'll give respect to folks when they begin to respect themselves

-Geaux

 

[Nosmo King]

The dignity afforded every other citizen can be withheld from homosexuals by dim witted bigots so long as those bigots claim some peculiar quotatation from scripture. We are not bound by canon law like Iran. We are bound by a code of laws which ignores social differences and dispenses Justice equally to its citizens.

Which political ideology has leapt to the defense of bigotry and against equality? Why our old friend Conservatism. The same ideology that has resisted every other social equality cause. Ask women. Ask African Americans. Ask workers. Ask the poor and infirmed and the elderly.

It's homosexual's time in the sun. Homosexuals are, hopefully, the last oppressed group and as such, they will be forced to suffer the lack of dignity every other oppressed group has felt and continues to feel from the closed minds and iron determination of the Conservative oppressor ideology.