Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[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.

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.

I moved no such goalposts. You are arguing that the rational legal basis for marriage is the Traditional view of it, which no longer exists under the law.

And for marriage existing since prehistoric times? Again, civil marriage, in the traditional sense of the word has a much shorter historical time base then that.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Most dicks are cut in half when the mouth utters the words "I Do"

Just sayin

 

[kaz]

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.

Businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to. That the government can force it's citizens to engage in business against their will is an abomination to liberty

 

[SwimExpert]

You are arguing that the rational legal basis for marriage is the Traditional view of it, which no longer exists under the law.

False.

 

[kaz]

No one really gives a shit if haters feel infringed upon. Most of us go through our entire lives and never even bump up against laws meant to end discrimination.

It is lawyer bait.

It is irrelevant whether or not they are actually racist, because the law is going to paint them as one either way.

Anyways, do you really believe your discrimination laws are actually working towards ending discrimination? Clearly they are making matters worse, and this is to be suspected since racism and bigotry is always founded on politicization.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation exist as commercial regulatory policy, ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes state and local governments to safeguard the markets and protect against their disruption, where allowing businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to the markets:

‘[T]he constitutionality of such state statutes stands unquestioned. "The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ," it was held in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), "in extent or character from that retained by the states over intrastate commerce."

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Get ready to run away again as you do every time you float that canard and I call you on it.

What does baking someone a cake have to do with interstate commerce?

Clayton? Clayton? Where'd you go?

You're an idiot, Clayton. Local business has nothing to do with interstate commerce

 

[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.

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

You're telling me what I think.... you don't know me.

 

[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.

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.

Wow, seems that people telling me what I want is all the rage all of a sudden. Again, you don't know me.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Why not just have them post a sign that says....God hates Fags?

 

[SwimExpert]

Wow, seems that people telling me what I want is all the rage all of a sudden. Again, you don't know me.

Someone's suddenly defensive because their hidden agenda has been laid bare. Your the one who makes your statements. Don't blame me because of your own stupidity.

 

[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.

Why not just have them post a sign that says....God hates Fags?

I think that would be an acceptable inclusion. But it should be very specifically stated "We refuse service for same sex couples" in the signage, to avoid any confusion.

 

[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.

You're telling me what I think.... you don't know me.

I know what you are typing, and it reeks of Though Police.

 

[Pop23]

You are arguing that the rational legal basis for marriage is the Traditional view of it, which no longer exists under the law.

False.

Must be true as you can't come up with an argument.

Then again, isn't that the point?

There is no real rational basis with the exception of tradition?

Now, who exactly is the baker discriminating against? A legal partnership formed only for financial reasons.

Like that's gonna float.

 

[Silhouette]

Why not just have them post a sign that says....God hates Fags?

Because that's not how Jude 1 reads in the New Testament. It says to hate the sin but love the sinner. So you're misrepresenting Christianity in order to drum up sympathy for the Church of LGBT. You're on a membership drive; so it's easy to see why you're doing this. If people go to a Christian church, it's harder to get their little kids and youth to sign up with your Church.

And speaking of posting a sign that says "God Hates Fags"....think a gay graphic designer should be required by law to print that sign for a Christian, or be fined and lose his license to do business?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

ANY business should be able to refuse service for ANY reason. Forcing businesses to do business with someone they chose not to should be illegal.


And while we're on the subject we should outlaw divorce for same sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

A conspicuous notice?

Like this, I assume...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

A conspicuous notice?

Like this, I assume...

The 21st Century version of the same sign.

Your safety is our #1 service.

 

[Silhouette]

What does the color of one's skin have to do with homosexual behaviors?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What does the color of one's skin have to do with homosexual behaviors?

Both have the right to equal treatment under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Frankly it depends on the locality you are in. In most states, you can discriminate against providing services to gays for any service you want.
For those who include discrimination based upon sexual orientation with other prohibitions- such as prohibition against discriminating against veterans or the handicapped or based upon race or religion- do you want to repeal those laws also?

 

[Syriusly]

What does the color of one's skin have to do with homosexual behaviors?

What does sexual orientation have to do with the race a person is sexually attracted to?