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

[martybegan]

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Civil rights are not dependent on justification to you. Nor would you alter your war on civil rights if such explanation were offered.

Are you staking out the low ground and calling the 'right' to discriminate a Civil Right?

The right to associate, and to not have to compromise ones moral values are civil rights. Government should not compel either to happen if a person doesn't want it to happen.

 

[martybegan]

Wait, by hosting a reception, my beliefs are forced on them?

Yes.

Just as my using the implied violence of the law to force a Muslim butcher to cut and sell me pork chops is.

The only reason these lesbians chose this venue was to infringe the rights of the owner.

So...by hosting a reception for Jews...they are forced into the Jewish belief.
So...by hosting a reception for vegetarians...they are forced to become vegetarians.
So...by hosting a reception for Minnesotans...they are forced to become Vikings fans.

Being a Jew is not sinful, nor is being a vegetarian, or a Minnesotan.
Being an active lesbian is sinful in their view, and celebrating something that condones that may be sinful as well.

So you ADMIT that by hosting a reception for Jews...they are forced into the Jewish belief.
So you ADMIT that by hosting a reception for vegetarians....they are forced into becoming vegetarians.
So you ADMIT that by hosting a reception fo Minnesotan..they are forced to become Vikings fans.

I admit nothing of the sort. Again, it doesn't matter because their morality is not compromised by ANY of those situations.

 

[bodecea]

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Civil rights are not dependent on justification to you. Nor would you alter your war on civil rights if such explanation were offered.

Are you staking out the low ground and calling the 'right' to discriminate a Civil Right?

The right to associate, and to not have to compromise ones moral values are civil rights. Government should not compel either to happen if a person doesn't want it to happen.

Anyone who doesn't want to deal with anyone they find icky is a very lonely person indeed.

 

[martybegan]

You are the one who brought up felons, is your comparison not as strong as you thought it was?

Ignoring the law, robbery and murder are sinful, as are homosexual acts. Asking someone who's morality is opposed to any to participate in something that glorifies ANY of them may put them into sin as well. In any event FORCING them to participate is about as anti-american as you can get.

You are comparing thieves and murderers with gays. Hmmmmmm.

Nosmo started it, I just replied to it to poke a hole in the logic. Blame her.

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Because none of your examples demands participation in the sin.

These business people are not refusing service. They are refusing to perform certain functions that require their personal participation.

Does their 'personal participation' go beyond supplying services provided to all other customers? Are these vendors required to deliver a toast at the reception? Are they expected to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper? Are they expected to go on the honeymoon?

None of it matters, if they think their participation in any way is sinful, why should government force them to participate?

 

[martybegan]

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Civil rights are not dependent on justification to you. Nor would you alter your war on civil rights if such explanation were offered.

Are you staking out the low ground and calling the 'right' to discriminate a Civil Right?

The right to associate, and to not have to compromise ones moral values are civil rights. Government should not compel either to happen if a person doesn't want it to happen.

Anyone who doesn't want to deal with anyone they find icky is a very lonely person indeed.

So there are zero people you find "icky" and would not want to associate with?

 

[Nosmo King]

You are comparing thieves and murderers with gays. Hmmmmmm.

Nosmo started it, I just replied to it to poke a hole in the logic. Blame her.

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Because none of your examples demands participation in the sin.

These business people are not refusing service. They are refusing to perform certain functions that require their personal participation.

Does their 'personal participation' go beyond supplying services provided to all other customers? Are these vendors required to deliver a toast at the reception? Are they expected to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper? Are they expected to go on the honeymoon?

None of it matters, if they think their participation in any way is sinful, why should government force them to participate?

Does that view of sin extend to sinful heterosexuals? Or is it just easier to pick on Gay citizens?

 

[martybegan]

Nosmo started it, I just replied to it to poke a hole in the logic. Blame her.

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Because none of your examples demands participation in the sin.

These business people are not refusing service. They are refusing to perform certain functions that require their personal participation.

Does their 'personal participation' go beyond supplying services provided to all other customers? Are these vendors required to deliver a toast at the reception? Are they expected to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper? Are they expected to go on the honeymoon?

None of it matters, if they think their participation in any way is sinful, why should government force them to participate?

Does that view of sin extend to sinful heterosexuals? Or is it just easier to pick on Gay citizens?

If they so choose, yes. The difference is you wouldn't be caring as much if they denied providing service to a 2nd marriage outside the church, and government wouldn't be concerned either, because divorcees are not a protected class (yet).

The easiest solution is to not have government involved at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you staking out the low ground and calling the 'right' to discriminate a Civil Right?

The right of freedom of association and assemble is one of the most basic of rights. It's why we put it into the very first of the amendments, and why it is among the first you seek to crush.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you staking out the low ground and calling the 'right' to discriminate a Civil Right?

The right of freedom of association and assemble is one of the most basic of rights. It's why we put it into the very first of the amendments, and why it is among the first you seek to crush.

Those freedoms are to redress grievances with the government, not to discriminate against American citizens.

 

[Seawytch]

Wait, by hosting a reception, my beliefs are forced on them?

Yes.

Just as my using the implied violence of the law to force a Muslim butcher to cut and sell me pork chops is.

The only reason these lesbians chose this venue was to infringe the rights of the owner.

So...by hosting a reception for Jews...they are forced into the Jewish belief.
So...by hosting a reception for vegetarians...they are forced to become vegetarians.
So...by hosting a reception for Minnesotans...they are forced to become Vikings fans.

Being a Jew is not sinful, nor is being a vegetarian, or a Minnesotan.
Being an active lesbian is sinful in their view, and celebrating something that condones that may be sinful as well.

Being gay isn't sinful either...no more than interracial marriage anyway.

Oh, I know...you think you're right and the racist bigots were wrong therefore you get to discriminate and they don't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those freedoms are to redress grievances with the government, not to discriminate against American citizens.

So, you hold that unless the purpose is to redress grievance, Americans have no right to assemble? The left has extreme hostility to civil liberty, but this marks a new extreme...

 

[bodecea]

It's 'blame him', but that's not the issue.

If these self righteous bigots hold that doing business with sinners makes them culpable in that sin, why don't they refuse service to adulterers? To gluttons? To felons?

Or is it just easier to discriminate against homosexuals?

Civil rights are not dependent on justification to you. Nor would you alter your war on civil rights if such explanation were offered.

Are you staking out the low ground and calling the 'right' to discriminate a Civil Right?

The right to associate, and to not have to compromise ones moral values are civil rights. Government should not compel either to happen if a person doesn't want it to happen.

Anyone who doesn't want to deal with anyone they find icky is a very lonely person indeed.

So there are zero people you find "icky" and would not want to associate with?

Sure...but in my business, I have no choice. I provide services for any law-abiding, tax-paying citizen tho many of them I would rather have nothing to do with for various reasons. It's business. Perhaps you are unaware of that being a PA requirement.

 

[Pop23]

Wait, by hosting a reception, my beliefs are forced on them?

Yes.

Just as my using the implied violence of the law to force a Muslim butcher to cut and sell me pork chops is.

The only reason these lesbians chose this venue was to infringe the rights of the owner.

So...by hosting a reception for Jews...they are forced into the Jewish belief.
So...by hosting a reception for vegetarians...they are forced to become vegetarians.
So...by hosting a reception for Minnesotans...they are forced to become Vikings fans.

Being a Jew is not sinful, nor is being a vegetarian, or a Minnesotan.
Being an active lesbian is sinful in their view, and celebrating something that condones that may be sinful as well.

Being gay isn't sinful either...no more than interracial marriage anyway.

Oh, I know...you think you're right and the racist bigots were wrong therefore you get to discriminate and they don't.

Racist bigots were wrong.

 

[Nosmo King]

Those freedoms are to redress grievances with the government, not to discriminate against American citizens.

So, you hold that unless the purpose is to redress grievance, Americans have no right to assemble? The left has extreme hostility to civil liberty, but this marks a new extreme...

No bigot has the right to diminish the dignity of a customer. Gay customers aren't in the store to diminish the dignity of the bigot.

Yet the Right goes back to the old Conservative playbook in which we find that discrimination is defined as a Civil Rigjt. The playbook that the Conservatives used when they put up all the resistance to Women's rights, worker's rights, the rights of the poor, the infirmed,mother elderly. Seems egalitatarianism is anathema to the old line Conservative bigots. Redefining vices as virtues is right in that old Conservative wheelhouse.

Are there not citizens immune to your image hatred?

 

[Seawytch]

Wait, by hosting a reception, my beliefs are forced on them?

Yes.

Just as my using the implied violence of the law to force a Muslim butcher to cut and sell me pork chops is.

The only reason these lesbians chose this venue was to infringe the rights of the owner.

So...by hosting a reception for Jews...they are forced into the Jewish belief.
So...by hosting a reception for vegetarians...they are forced to become vegetarians.
So...by hosting a reception for Minnesotans...they are forced to become Vikings fans.

Being a Jew is not sinful, nor is being a vegetarian, or a Minnesotan.
Being an active lesbian is sinful in their view, and celebrating something that condones that may be sinful as well.

Being gay isn't sinful either...no more than interracial marriage anyway.

Oh, I know...you think you're right and the racist bigots were wrong therefore you get to discriminate and they don't.

Racist bigots were wrong.

They didn't think so. They were as certain they were right as you are.

 

[Pop23]

Yes.

Just as my using the implied violence of the law to force a Muslim butcher to cut and sell me pork chops is.

The only reason these lesbians chose this venue was to infringe the rights of the owner.

So...by hosting a reception for Jews...they are forced into the Jewish belief.
So...by hosting a reception for vegetarians...they are forced to become vegetarians.
So...by hosting a reception for Minnesotans...they are forced to become Vikings fans.

Being a Jew is not sinful, nor is being a vegetarian, or a Minnesotan.
Being an active lesbian is sinful in their view, and celebrating something that condones that may be sinful as well.

Being gay isn't sinful either...no more than interracial marriage anyway.

Oh, I know...you think you're right and the racist bigots were wrong therefore you get to discriminate and they don't.

Racist bigots were wrong.

They didn't think so. They were as certain they were right as you are.

They were wrong

 

[Pop23]

Those freedoms are to redress grievances with the government, not to discriminate against American citizens.

So, you hold that unless the purpose is to redress grievance, Americans have no right to assemble? The left has extreme hostility to civil liberty, but this marks a new extreme...

No bigot has the right to diminish the dignity of a customer. Gay customers aren't in the store to diminish the dignity of the bigot.

Yet the Right goes back to the old Conservative playbook in which we find that discrimination is defined as a Civil Rigjt. The playbook that the Conservatives used when they put up all the resistance to Women's rights, worker's rights, the rights of the poor, the infirmed,mother elderly. Seems egalitatarianism is anathema to the old line Conservative bigots. Redefining vices as virtues is right in that old Conservative wheelhouse.

Are there not citizens immune to your image hatred?

The delusional always feel they are being discriminated against. They are after all, delusional.

 

[Nosmo King]

Those freedoms are to redress grievances with the government, not to discriminate against American citizens.

So, you hold that unless the purpose is to redress grievance, Americans have no right to assemble? The left has extreme hostility to civil liberty, but this marks a new extreme...

No bigot has the right to diminish the dignity of a customer. Gay customers aren't in the store to diminish the dignity of the bigot.

Yet the Right goes back to the old Conservative playbook in which we find that discrimination is defined as a Civil Rigjt. The playbook that the Conservatives used when they put up all the resistance to Women's rights, worker's rights, the rights of the poor, the infirmed,mother elderly. Seems egalitatarianism is anathema to the old line Conservative bigots. Redefining vices as virtues is right in that old Conservative wheelhouse.

Are there not citizens immune to your image hatred?

The delusional always feel they are being discriminated against. They are after all, delusional.

What makes homosexuals "delusional"?

 

[JoeB131]

I'm cool with it, I have gay friends and relatives. I love and respect every one of them. I would not attend a gay wedding if one of them decided to "marry". but it would not change how I feel about them as people.

thats what you lefties don't get, being opposed to gay marriage does not mean we hate gays.

again, like the racist who says, "But some of my best friends are n****rs."

You like them, but you don't respect who they are, because you think it's icky and your magic sky pixie says it's bad.

 

[JoeB131]

**** you, you prim smarmy atheist asshole. I may be ambivalent about religion, but I have far more respect for those of faith than jacket wearing pricks like yourself.

You are one of those sad people who see government as granting people things, as opposed to the way it should work, which is the the people allowing government things.

Die, you fascist pig.

No, guy, I see government as doing what government should do- resolve disputes and keep society running civilly.

You people obviously had no problem with most of our history when gays were routinely abused by society, but now that the homophobes are finding themselves with the shit end of the stick, you guys are whining, "Oh, I'm being oppressed because I have to do what I promised!!!"