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

[Nosmo King]

Do homosexuals actually buy the body, mind and spirit of a DJ for their wedding? Do homosexuals pay their bills?

If a DJ does not want to be a DJ, that DJ has made some regrettable decisions. Decisions like "Should I be a DJ?"

Bakers, caterers, photographers, florists, gown makers and venue owners are in the business of supplying goods and services, not to be "enslaved". Does every other client see these vendors as "slaves" or is this a ham handed attempt to interject hyperbole to bolster a crappy argument and rationalize bigotry?

If you compel others to labor against their will, based on the threat of force, then the name of that is slavery.

There are no weasel words that can alter this fact. You seek to enslave others to your will.

Are landlords forced into your weird little definition of "slavery" if they rent an apartment to an African American tenant?

 

[Katzndogz]

Do they all up and out say they don't like gay people? do they make you attend a celebration of not liking gay people?

It might, at first glance, to be merely semantic, but you keep saying wedding vendors are forced to "attend" same sex weddings. There is a difference between 'attending' a wedding and 'working' a wedding. The vendors are just plying their trade. They are not required, nor requested to approve of the happy couple.

Could a restaurantuer refuse service to a walki in four top of homosexuals? I wonder what that restaurantuer's attitude might be on a slow Tuesday night? But the maitre d does not sidle up to the table, the sommelier doesn't bring an extra glass and make a toast.

And wedding vendors, with the exception of the waiters and bartenders and musical entertainment should be invisible. It's the bride's day, not the day for a vendor to grant his empremator even on the occasion.

A restaurant serves a homosexual couple that comes in, sits down and places their order. The bakery boxes up the cupcakes whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. No one has told them no. The vendors simply by virtue of their appearance at a same sex event advertise their approval of such an event. There is a difference between going out to a restaurant and sitting down, and bringing that vendor to your location. Having that vendor's name on his or her personal product is an advertisement for future business. It is an advertisement specifically to a subset of the population that the vendor does not wish to target in his advertising program. It is forced speech. Not only is the speech forced, there is no way for the vendor to deny the speech forced from his mouth. Every picture the photographer takes is a statement of expertise. Every bite of wedding cake advertises the baker's talent. Every song the singer sings is an advertisement of quality of work. At a same sex event, all that advertising is directed to same sex couples indicating a willingness to accept their business.

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

 

[Nosmo King]

It might, at first glance, to be merely semantic, but you keep saying wedding vendors are forced to "attend" same sex weddings. There is a difference between 'attending' a wedding and 'working' a wedding. The vendors are just plying their trade. They are not required, nor requested to approve of the happy couple.

Could a restaurantuer refuse service to a walki in four top of homosexuals? I wonder what that restaurantuer's attitude might be on a slow Tuesday night? But the maitre d does not sidle up to the table, the sommelier doesn't bring an extra glass and make a toast.

And wedding vendors, with the exception of the waiters and bartenders and musical entertainment should be invisible. It's the bride's day, not the day for a vendor to grant his empremator even on the occasion.

A restaurant serves a homosexual couple that comes in, sits down and places their order. The bakery boxes up the cupcakes whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. No one has told them no. The vendors simply by virtue of their appearance at a same sex event advertise their approval of such an event. There is a difference between going out to a restaurant and sitting down, and bringing that vendor to your location. Having that vendor's name on his or her personal product is an advertisement for future business. It is an advertisement specifically to a subset of the population that the vendor does not wish to target in his advertising program. It is forced speech. Not only is the speech forced, there is no way for the vendor to deny the speech forced from his mouth. Every picture the photographer takes is a statement of expertise. Every bite of wedding cake advertises the baker's talent. Every song the singer sings is an advertisement of quality of work. At a same sex event, all that advertising is directed to same sex couples indicating a willingness to accept their business.

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

 

[Katzndogz]

Do homosexuals actually buy the body, mind and spirit of a DJ for their wedding? Do homosexuals pay their bills?

If a DJ does not want to be a DJ, that DJ has made some regrettable decisions. Decisions like "Should I be a DJ?"

Bakers, caterers, photographers, florists, gown makers and venue owners are in the business of supplying goods and services, not to be "enslaved". Does every other client see these vendors as "slaves" or is this a ham handed attempt to interject hyperbole to bolster a crappy argument and rationalize bigotry?

If you compel others to labor against their will, based on the threat of force, then the name of that is slavery.

There are no weasel words that can alter this fact. You seek to enslave others to your will.

Are landlords forced into your weird little definition of "slavery" if they rent an apartment to an African American tenant?

If the landlord rents an apartment to an African American tenant and the tenant demands that the rent include housekeeping, that's slavery.

In the case of the baker, caterer, florist, gown maker and venue owner, the operative terms is AGAINST THEIR WILL. When someone is forced to labor against their will, that's slavery and nothing can change it. Even if they get paid triple, it is still against their will.

 

[Katzndogz]

A restaurant serves a homosexual couple that comes in, sits down and places their order. The bakery boxes up the cupcakes whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. No one has told them no. The vendors simply by virtue of their appearance at a same sex event advertise their approval of such an event. There is a difference between going out to a restaurant and sitting down, and bringing that vendor to your location. Having that vendor's name on his or her personal product is an advertisement for future business. It is an advertisement specifically to a subset of the population that the vendor does not wish to target in his advertising program. It is forced speech. Not only is the speech forced, there is no way for the vendor to deny the speech forced from his mouth. Every picture the photographer takes is a statement of expertise. Every bite of wedding cake advertises the baker's talent. Every song the singer sings is an advertisement of quality of work. At a same sex event, all that advertising is directed to same sex couples indicating a willingness to accept their business.

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

 

[bodecea]

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

 

[martybegan]

A restaurant serves a homosexual couple that comes in, sits down and places their order. The bakery boxes up the cupcakes whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. No one has told them no. The vendors simply by virtue of their appearance at a same sex event advertise their approval of such an event. There is a difference between going out to a restaurant and sitting down, and bringing that vendor to your location. Having that vendor's name on his or her personal product is an advertisement for future business. It is an advertisement specifically to a subset of the population that the vendor does not wish to target in his advertising program. It is forced speech. Not only is the speech forced, there is no way for the vendor to deny the speech forced from his mouth. Every picture the photographer takes is a statement of expertise. Every bite of wedding cake advertises the baker's talent. Every song the singer sings is an advertisement of quality of work. At a same sex event, all that advertising is directed to same sex couples indicating a willingness to accept their business.

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

It doesn't matter.

 

[martybegan]

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

All morals are selective, depending on the person in question.

 

[Redfish]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

 

[bodecea]

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

All morals are selective, depending on the person in question.

Exactly! Thank you for finally recognizing that. Thus the need for PA (public accomodation) laws and the concept of Rule of Law.

 

[Redfish]

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

Correction. They have SELECTIVE morals and principles.

All morals are selective, depending on the person in question.

Exactly! Thank you for finally recognizing that. Thus the need for PA (public accomodation) laws and the concept of Rule of Law.

LOL, but you want YOUR morals forced on everyone else by the government. Thats the hypocrisy of the gay agenda.

 

[Nosmo King]

Vendors for wedding services are hired and paid. Their presence at an affair is not a commercial imprimatur, rather it is simply plying their trade.

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

 

[Redfish]

Why does that matter, again, where is the benefit in forcing these people to participate in something they do not want to? What does getting paid to do it change?

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

 

[Nosmo King]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats really do understand the concept of forcing someone to work against their will. They just apply it differently.

 

[bodecea]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

So, do civil rights only apply to groups that are considered "normal"? And who is it who makes such a call?

 

[bodecea]

Democrats really do understand the concept of forcing someone to work against their will. They just apply it differently.

Like forcing Muslim taxi drivers to take passengers with alcohol or pets. SLAVERY!!!!!

 

[Katzndogz]

the issue here is not bakers, black people, jim crow, or rosie o'donnel.

the issue is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Until we can focus on the real issue, we are spinning our wheels in a sea of mud.

It may not be 'normal' to you, but that does not mean it's not normal for others.

Homosexuality is not a crime. It does not endanger anyone. It is consensual and accepted and not uncommon. It is not a character flaw nor a mental condition.

Every relationship, personal or business, involving another person should also be consensual.

 

[Nosmo King]

Hiring a caterer is suddenly forcing them to participate in my wedding? All I want is 150 servings of chicken cordon bleu and 150 servings of salmon croquettes. I don't want the serving staff to join the father-daughter dance or to offer up a toast. I want them to ply their trade and nothing else.

If I am accused of forcing them to work, what will next weekend's clients be accused of? Forcing them to accept a check?

Wedding vendors DO NOT PARTICIPATE nor are they asked to approve of each and every event they facilitate.

In YOUR opinion they don't participate. In the Court's opinion they not only do, but they MUST. Their very appearance indicates an approval of the event. Their name on the box, photograph album, or bandstand is an appearance. The best the court offered was that they could include a disclaimer that they personally object to same sex marriage, but they MUST provide these services under the law. Now, why would the court offer such an alternative? I could envision a band ordered to appear at a same sex wedding that offered such a disclaimer preceding every piece of music that they played. It would be within the law, and not much fun for the wedding participants.

When people are forced to act when they don't wish to act the results are unpredictable. Forced labor is a form of slavery.

What precisely is their objection? Is it because their interpretation of scripture prevents them from being a willing supplier of goods and services? Or is it that they find marriage equality 'icky'? What's their legitimate beef?

They have morals and principles. Why they have them is not material. They don't need a reason.

And those 'morals' and 'prinicples' dictate that they should discriminate against their fellow American citizens who are not committing crimes? What moral authority do you suppose would validate an immoral action and call it 'moral'?

bigamists and polygamists have morals too, they believe their lifestyle is normal and should be recognized by society as such. Why do you advocate discriminating against them?

Very simply. The marriage license creates, in the eyes of the state, a new entity. A coupling of two consenting adults without prior blood relationships into a new economic entity with the full benefits and protections of the law under the marriage contract.

Polygamists do not recognize the essential tenet of that contract: it's TWO people forming the new entity. Polygamists should, rather, incorporate under the protections and benefits of that specific contract.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats really do understand the concept of forcing someone to work against their will. They just apply it differently.

Like forcing Muslim taxi drivers to take passengers with alcohol or pets. SLAVERY!!!!!

Like the maid forced to work against her will or her employers will have her deported. She's working under threat. Does it matter that she's paid? Even if she's well paid, does it matter if the labor is not willingly given. Everyone understands that this is slavery.