Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[Onyx]

Well if 3 thugs mug you for your wallet, your powerful minority of one can just fend for yourself.

False premise.

The whole of society can cooperate without demanding subjugation of the minority perspective.

You want the majority's protection?

It depends.

How much protection money are they going to extort out of me?

You play by the rules of democracy.

That is not democracy.

It is a like minded ruling class.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

 

[SwimExpert]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

You know, I'm going to approve of that message, so long as the same stipulation is applied. You want to discriminate against interracial marriage? Go ahead! So long as you have conspicuous signage on your storefronts.

What you're not getting is that the market does not like those kinds of things. We're letting bigots stay in business because nobody knows they're bigots. Discrimination is happening all the time in today's world, because discriminatory bigots are hiding in plain sight, continuing to get their fill of business, and simply masking their discrimination in other terms. I happen to know of one particular wedding planner who is well known within the local industry for being rabidly opposed to same sex marriage and flatly refuses to serve gay couples. It's pretty easy to do. All she has to do is say she's not available. She's actually so damn vile about it that she's alienated most people. But she gets plenty of clients who never know how much of a monster that bitch is.

But you stupid liberals don't actually care about any of that. You don't actually care about encouraging an inclusive society, you just care about government control.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why mandate service to a partnership that has no rational legal basis to exist in the first place?

So marriage has no rational legal basis to even exist?

 

[martybegan]

RWNJ traitors need to get busy changing the constitution/Declaration of Independence. We need to insert the word "EXCEPT" any place we don't like somebody.

Kind of like the exception you idiots want, "you have freedom of religion, EXCEPT when you try to sell something to someone I like"

 

[martybegan]

Unconstitutional things cannot be made legal once the supreme court says something is unconstitutional.

If you amend the constitution it can be, and of course decisions can be overturned.

 

[Pop23]

Why mandate service to a partnership that has no rational legal basis to exist in the first place?

So marriage has no rational legal basis to even exist?

Go for it. Name it

 

[martybegan]

The 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion trumps (pardon the pun) the supreme court decision that legalized sodomite weddings. You could say that the 95% of Americans and small mom and pop businesses who view "same sex weddings" as abhorrent are being discriminated against if they are threatened with arrest when they refuse to be a part of sodomite weddings. Who is the victim here?

The victim is the same sex couple. There is no religious "right" to discriminate. Do you have a religious "right" to refuse service to African Americans? To Jewish Americans? To Islamic Americans?

Please cite for us all where Jesus Christ admonished His followers to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this ugly, anti-Christian dogma come from? How does it square with true Christian teaching, I.e. Love your neighbor and you would be loved? Or cast not the first stone for you too are a sinner?

Nowhere! It's simply using a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if signage is needed to protect the bigots, I suggest they post a large sign in their window stating: Due to our abiding faith in Jesus Christ, we refuse to serve SKEEVY, maggot-infested queers.

If you're a bigot, own your bigotry.

Everyone's a victim nowadays. And having your feelings hurt is so so trying. definitely worth a $100k fine and the ruination of the offending party.

Your right to commerce has to be balanced with the right of others to exercise their religion. In all of these cases, the people were not refused service because they were gay, they were refused service because the servers did not want to be involved in a gay wedding. If they were asked to make a birthday cake, I have a feeling most of them would not have an issue.

and your own bigotry is telling from the last two lines of your post.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why mandate service to a partnership that has no rational legal basis to exist in the first place?

So marriage has no rational legal basis to even exist?

Go for it. Name it

Two people choose to be married. No different than any other contract. If me and Bobby McGee choose to enter into a contract for whatever agreement, then our mutual agreement is all the rational basis needed for the contract to legally exist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

You know, I'm going to approve of that message, so long as the same stipulation is applied. You want to discriminate against interracial marriage? Go ahead! So long as you have conspicuous signage on your storefronts.

What you're not getting is that the market does not like those kinds of things. We're letting bigots stay in business because nobody knows they're bigots. Discrimination is happening all the time in today's world, because discriminatory bigots are hiding in plain sight, continuing to get their fill of business, and simply masking their discrimination in other terms. I happen to know of one particular wedding planner who is well known within the local industry for being rabidly opposed to same sex marriage and flatly refuses to serve gay couples. It's pretty easy to do. All she has to do is say she's not available. She's actually so damn vile about it that she's alienated most people. But she gets plenty of clients who never know how much of a monster that bitch is.

But you stupid liberals don't actually care about any of that. You don't actually care about encouraging an inclusive society, you just care about government control.

See, I don't want to live in a society where bigotry and stupidity is encouraged.

 

[martybegan]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

You know, I'm going to approve of that message, so long as the same stipulation is applied. You want to discriminate against interracial marriage? Go ahead! So long as you have conspicuous signage on your storefronts.

What you're not getting is that the market does not like those kinds of things. We're letting bigots stay in business because nobody knows they're bigots. Discrimination is happening all the time in today's world, because discriminatory bigots are hiding in plain sight, continuing to get their fill of business, and simply masking their discrimination in other terms. I happen to know of one particular wedding planner who is well known within the local industry for being rabidly opposed to same sex marriage and flatly refuses to serve gay couples. It's pretty easy to do. All she has to do is say she's not available. She's actually so damn vile about it that she's alienated most people. But she gets plenty of clients who never know how much of a monster that bitch is.

But you stupid liberals don't actually care about any of that. You don't actually care about encouraging an inclusive society, you just care about government control.

See, I don't want to live in a society where bigotry and stupidity is encouraged.

No, you would rather live in a society where government punishes you for Thought Crime then.

 

[SwimExpert]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

Discriminating against weddings for interracial marriages, for marriages for those under the age of 30, for those who've been divorced already, for those who have had sex before marriage, for those with two eyes, etc should also be allowed to discriminate against. Hell, let's annoy everyone and ban marriage for all those who don't have at least $5 million to pay in bribes to any government official.

You know, I'm going to approve of that message, so long as the same stipulation is applied. You want to discriminate against interracial marriage? Go ahead! So long as you have conspicuous signage on your storefronts.

What you're not getting is that the market does not like those kinds of things. We're letting bigots stay in business because nobody knows they're bigots. Discrimination is happening all the time in today's world, because discriminatory bigots are hiding in plain sight, continuing to get their fill of business, and simply masking their discrimination in other terms. I happen to know of one particular wedding planner who is well known within the local industry for being rabidly opposed to same sex marriage and flatly refuses to serve gay couples. It's pretty easy to do. All she has to do is say she's not available. She's actually so damn vile about it that she's alienated most people. But she gets plenty of clients who never know how much of a monster that bitch is.

But you stupid liberals don't actually care about any of that. You don't actually care about encouraging an inclusive society, you just care about government control.

See, I don't want to live in a society where bigotry and stupidity is encouraged.

If that were true, then you'd support my plan. But it's not true. What you really want is to live in a society where government controls everything. You want the government to be nominally at the helm of every "solution" even when government fails miserably to accomplish the solution. You simply can't stand the thought that the solution you claim to want could be accomplished more effectively though market forces.

 

[TNHarley]

The government shouldnt force people what to do with their private property. Period.

 

[SwimExpert]

The government shouldnt force people what to do with their private property. Period.

Does that include penises?

 

[Pop23]

Why mandate service to a partnership that has no rational legal basis to exist in the first place?

So marriage has no rational legal basis to even exist?

Go for it. Name it

Two people choose to be married. No different than any other contract. If me and Bobby McGee choose to enter into a contract for whatever agreement, then our mutual agreement is all the rational basis needed for the contract to legally exist.

Of course, but you just explained why partnerships are rational. They exist in many forms and for as many reasons. Only one excludes persons that "are not to closely related", and limits the partnership to only two.

FOR NO RATIONAL LEGAL REASON.

So again, what is the rational legal reason for it to exist.

 

[TNHarley]

The government shouldnt force people what to do with their private property. Period.

Does that include penises?

Its debatable

 

[SwimExpert]

Why mandate service to a partnership that has no rational legal basis to exist in the first place?

So marriage has no rational legal basis to even exist?

Go for it. Name it

Two people choose to be married. No different than any other contract. If me and Bobby McGee choose to enter into a contract for whatever agreement, then our mutual agreement is all the rational basis needed for the contract to legally exist.

Of course, but you just explained why partnerships are rational. They exist in many forms and for as many reasons. Only one excludes persons that "are not to closely related", and limits the partnership to only two.

FOR NO RATIONAL LEGAL REASON.

So again, what is the rational legal reason for it to exist.

Actually, you're moving the goal post. I gave you an explanation, but now you're complaining about the particulars of marriage. I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of marriage. If you don't believe in marriage then you don't have to get married. However, seeing as marriage has existed since prehistoric times, you arguing that it shouldn't exist at all is absurd.

 

[SwimExpert]

The government shouldnt force people what to do with their private property. Period.

Does that include penises?

Its debatable

I think the real question is whether a penis is personal property. If so, then shouldn't it be divided in half in a divorce?

 

[TNHarley]

The government shouldnt force people what to do with their private property. Period.

Does that include penises?

Its debatable

I think the real question is whether a penis is personal property. If so, then shouldn't it be divided in half in a divorce?

I thought you were just fooling around. I didn't think you were actually trying to make a point..

 

[SwimExpert]

The government shouldnt force people what to do with their private property. Period.

Does that include penises?

Its debatable

I think the real question is whether a penis is personal property. If so, then shouldn't it be divided in half in a divorce?

I thought you were just fooling around. I didn't think you were actually trying to make a point..

Those aren't mutually exclusive with me.