NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[Intense]

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

It is not the same comparison.

 

[bodecea]

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious ******* assholes for making a big deal out of it.

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

Just as much as it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a mixed race or mixed religion or mixed age marriage or any kind of marriage against their religious conviction.

 

[bodecea]

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

It is not the same comparison.

Most certainly is.

 

[Polk]

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

Poor Woolworth stores, having to live under a totalitarian nightmare.

 

[Polk]

Perhaps you don't see any distinction between a retail outlet, open to the public, and a personal service such as photographing a wedding ceremony. They are different enough IMO that they shouldn't be jammed into the same bucket, with the same set of rules.

And yes, those two lesbians are still serious ******* assholes for making a big deal out of it.

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

No. They always possess the freedom to not open a business.

 

[Intense]

Like forcing those Woolworth stores to serve black customers against their will....Grrrrrr! I'm old enough to have heard THAT excuse before.

It is not the same comparison.

Most certainly is.

Like going to a Vegetarian Restaurant and forcing them to serve me a BLT?

How about a Kosher or Halal Deli?

If it is against your Religious belief to work on the Sabbath, can I compel you by force of law to do so?

I don't think the Black Community as a whole, appreciates the comparison to what on your end is a Life Style Choice. I actually do not have a problem personally with you making your own choice, just so we are clear. However when you oppose your will on Religious Institutions to forsake their teachings, to accommodate you, I take offense and make it my business, my goal, my mission. Again, any Clergy that decides on their own to facilitate Gay Marriage on their premises, voluntarily, I have no problem with. That falls under Liberty and Free Will. Something you obviously need to study more on, along why you feel the need to force others to your will.
It seems that being able to Marry is not enough for you and that you have an agenda.

 

[Intense]

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

No. They always possess the freedom to not open a business.

So, in life, it seems, I am free to agree with you, and I am free to bend to your will, because you may have influence and or power. That is not enough for me.

The Anarchist in me has drawn the line in the sand.
My advice to Anyone, facing hard choices, Conscience first in all things, stand firm.

**** Totalitarian Hypocrisy. Until Big Brother learns to keep his own house, his own minions in order, and set the example it professes, **** Him and the horse he rode in on.

Never willingly choose to do anything, that you know will burden your Conscience for the rest of your days. Government is not God, Government is not infallible, it's nobility, all too often has the stench of low tide.

 

[Intense]

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

No. They always possess the freedom to not open a business.

Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. **** Off.

 

[Polk]

The totalitarian hypocrisy is your claim that you only want freedom, which you define as giving certain groups special rights.

 

[bodecea]

The totalitarian hypocrisy is your claim that you only want freedom, which you define as giving certain groups special rights.

Those "special rights" being.....?

 

[del]

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

Just as much as it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a mixed race or mixed religion or mixed age marriage or any kind of marriage against their religious conviction.

which is to say, it's unfair.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.

And you base this opinion on what fact of law?

** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

So while trying to determine whether the Muslim car accident victim’ s injuries are ‘life threatening’ and if he may be admitted to the Christians only hospital, he dies.

Good idea.

 

[martybegan]

The totalitarian hypocrisy is your claim that you only want freedom, which you define as giving certain groups special rights.

Those "special rights" being.....?

The whole "protected class" concept found in the New Mexico law. Apparently as long as you are in a "protected class" you get the ability to screw people over who do not agree with you.

Again, when it comes to government or emergency services, there should be zero discrimination based on anything. Remember the constitution restricts what GOVERNMENT can do, not what PEOPLE can do (except own slaves or bring booze into a dry juristiction). Laws are designed to restrict what people do, limited by the constitution.

Laws like those in New Mexico appear to have a noble goal, but all they do is forment resentment, and retard the gradual shift in moral beliefs that would occur if these protected classes would go with persuasion and argument as opposed to governmental fiat.

Actions against government discrimination are one thing, and through this debate I can see the reasoning for allowing gay marriage, or at least the changing of marriage by the state into a union contract, with the concept of marriage left to religons and/or other private secular organizations.

But I have to draw the line at laws, commissions and fiats that force individual people in non essential tasks to have to take on business relationships that go against thier moral compass. The couple in queston suffered no financial loss and did not enter into a contract with the photographer that was broken at a later date. The only thing they had was thier feelings hurt. To judge against people whos only fault was to be honest about thier beliefs, whos service to society at a whole is non essential is to me a horrible form of tyranny.

 

[Intense]

The totalitarian hypocrisy is your claim that you only want freedom, which you define as giving certain groups special rights.

Nice try. How about Separation of Church and State. How about the Freedom to not be taken advantage of. You want to impose your will on another, yet claim foul when challenged. The Right to live ones own life is not special privilege, unless maybe you think we are the property of the State. I understand your perspective, I just don't subscribe to it. One should maybe work out one's own kinks, rather than manipulating others.

NYS seems to be fine Recognizing the distinction between Church and State, why do you need to challenge that?

 

[Intense]

The totalitarian hypocrisy is your claim that you only want freedom, which you define as giving certain groups special rights.

Those "special rights" being.....?

The whole "protected class" concept found in the New Mexico law. Apparently as long as you are in a "protected class" you get the ability to screw people over who do not agree with you.

Again, when it comes to government or emergency services, there should be zero discrimination based on anything. Remember the constitution restricts what GOVERNMENT can do, not what PEOPLE can do (except own slaves or bring booze into a dry juristiction). Laws are designed to restrict what people do, limited by the constitution.

Laws like those in New Mexico appear to have a noble goal, but all they do is forment resentment, and retard the gradual shift in moral beliefs that would occur if these protected classes would go with persuasion and argument as opposed to governmental fiat.

Actions against government discrimination are one thing, and through this debate I can see the reasoning for allowing gay marriage, or at least the changing of marriage by the state into a union contract, with the concept of marriage left to religons and/or other private secular organizations.

But I have to draw the line at laws, commissions and fiats that force individual people in non essential tasks to have to take on business relationships that go against thier moral compass. The couple in queston suffered no financial loss and did not enter into a contract with the photographer that was broken at a later date. The only thing they had was thier feelings hurt. To judge against people whos only fault was to be honest about thier beliefs, whos service to society at a whole is non essential is to me a horrible form of tyranny.

Even the point with NM is off topic, being the Thread is about the NY Legislation.

 

[martybegan]

Those "special rights" being.....?

The whole "protected class" concept found in the New Mexico law. Apparently as long as you are in a "protected class" you get the ability to screw people over who do not agree with you.

Again, when it comes to government or emergency services, there should be zero discrimination based on anything. Remember the constitution restricts what GOVERNMENT can do, not what PEOPLE can do (except own slaves or bring booze into a dry juristiction). Laws are designed to restrict what people do, limited by the constitution.

Laws like those in New Mexico appear to have a noble goal, but all they do is forment resentment, and retard the gradual shift in moral beliefs that would occur if these protected classes would go with persuasion and argument as opposed to governmental fiat.

Actions against government discrimination are one thing, and through this debate I can see the reasoning for allowing gay marriage, or at least the changing of marriage by the state into a union contract, with the concept of marriage left to religons and/or other private secular organizations.

But I have to draw the line at laws, commissions and fiats that force individual people in non essential tasks to have to take on business relationships that go against thier moral compass. The couple in queston suffered no financial loss and did not enter into a contract with the photographer that was broken at a later date. The only thing they had was thier feelings hurt. To judge against people whos only fault was to be honest about thier beliefs, whos service to society at a whole is non essential is to me a horrible form of tyranny.

Even the point with NM is off topic, being the Thread is about the NY Legislation.

Well, this is where it has meandered due to discussion over the exemption clause being added to the NY law.

 

[Intense]

Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.

And you base this opinion on what fact of law?

** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

So while trying to determine whether the Muslim car accident victim’ s injuries are ‘life threatening’ and if he may be admitted to the Christians only hospital, he dies.

Good idea.

So while trying to determine whether the Muslim car accident victim’ s injuries are ‘life threatening’ and if he may be admitted to the Christians only hospital, he dies.

Unless you have a link to back that up, I am calling you out on that claim as utter Bullshit.

That is not how Emergency Rescue is played out, Spanky.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which is why I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general. A private business acting in a private capacity ought to be able to say "No" for whatever reason they choose**.

And you base this opinion on what fact of law?

Try again I didn't say it was based on law. You should have quoted this one instead...

I disagree with Public Accommodation laws in general whether they be based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, etc... Public Accommodation laws should apply to government entities (and may limit the ability of government entities to do business with discriminatory private entities) but not to private entities themselves as the government should respect the individuals right of free association. If a photographer doesn't want to shoot black or Jewish or Same-sex or Old or Irish or etc. weddings that should be their choice.

Personal opinion though and what the law requires are two different things.

** I do have a line through with medical professional in life threatening situations.

So while trying to determine whether the Muslim car accident victim’ s injuries are ‘life threatening’ and if he may be admitted to the Christians only hospital, he dies.

Good idea.

If an individuals in a car accident and in the process of dying trying to revive someone to ask them their religion is probably the last thing that is going on.

Fail.



>>>>

 

[manifold]

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

Just as much as it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a mixed race or mixed religion or mixed age marriage or any kind of marriage against their religious conviction.

So is that a yes?

 

[manifold]

Are you trying to say that a photographer business is NOT a retail outlet? A business serving the public is a business serving the public whether it is a restaurant or a photographer.

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

No. They always possess the freedom to not open a business.

Everyone has the freedom to go hungry. Great argument dipshit.