Pastor's solution to the Christian caterer/homo gestapo dilemma:

[PaintMyHouse]

It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.

Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.

While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't see anything wrong with a caterer (or whatever) putting out a sign that says we only cater weddings at X church. However, if what evolves (-: is simply a list of all the churches in town that don't do gay marriage ceremony, then it's no different from the previous discrimination.

They don't have a sign. They don't need a sign. They just don't offer catering services to the general public. Many catering services do not offer services to the general public. They only cater corporate events.

A caterer tying to have it both ways? Busted.

 

[norwegen]

This would back Christianity and America's revolutionary principles further into a corner.

 

[Katzndogz]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.

If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.

Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.

 

[AceRothstein]

Here in Chicago, most venues have a list of caterers that you can use at their venue if they have an on-site caterer. Venues that want to stay open aren't going to list a caterer that won't work with a segment of it's customers.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.

If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.

Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.

The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.

Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.

 

[Siete]

if a gay church refused to do straight weddings the RW's would be crapping in their shorts screaming discrimination ..

rumor has it, the pastor with this epiphany is a closet homo.

 

[Katzndogz]

It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.

Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.

While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.

Yes. But the company using UPS or FEDEX is not free to use another carrier. Not any more than my insurance company was free to let me go to CVS.

It's not unlike an artist contracting an exclusive agreement with a gallery or an actor under an exclusive agreement with a studio. Even a singer under exclusive agreement with a label.

For a baker to enter into an exclusive agreement with a church to make wedding cakes means that all wedding cakes made by that baker already belong to the church.

 

[Katzndogz]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.

If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.

Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.

The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.

Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.

You are wrong. Just wrong. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. If the terms only include wedding cakes it includes nothing else. If the contract is to supply brownies to the military it doesn't include cookies.

 

[Edgetho]

With FREEDOM comes a lot of things.

Freedom of speech protects speech that is onerous and divisive.

There is that freedom that IS always overlooked..... The Freedom To Be Stupid.

If someone wants to turn down making money on baking a cake for homos, IMO they have that freedom..... The freedom to be stupid.

And here's why..... The gays who want the cake approached the Baker, not vice versa.

If that Baker were the only Baker within 500 Miles or was a government monopoly -- I'd think differently.

But, it's like -- Aren't there any gay bakers? No.... I've never heard of one. Seems that craft doesn't attract many gays.

Aren't there any gay Florists? No, seems gays don't like flower arrangements.

And heaven forbid a gay couple ever wants a Designer to do their House.... Good God, there are absolutely NO GAYS in that field of endeavor.

dimocraps are just scumbags, people. There's no discrimination going on here. This whole thing was made up put of whole cloth.

dimocrap scum do this shit ALL THE TIME.

I remember back in the day when corporal punishment was a big deal in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM, the NEA and ACLU got together and FOUND some parent who would sue on her kid's behalf.

Just like all this shit -- It's all made up, people. It's all BULLSHIT.

These things just don't happen in real, every day life. And if they do, they're the rare exception and not the rule.

There's just one thing you need to remember in all this -- At all times....

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

period

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.

Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.

While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.

Yes. But the company using UPS or FEDEX is not free to use another carrier. Not any more than my insurance company was free to let me go to CVS.

It's not unlike an artist contracting an exclusive agreement with a gallery or an actor under an exclusive agreement with a studio. Even a singer under exclusive agreement with a label.

For a baker to enter into an exclusive agreement with a church to make wedding cakes means that all wedding cakes made by that baker already belong to the church.

That would depend on the contract but say the church signs one of those, to only use cakes at weddings made by one baker. What do you do if the bride doesn't like their cakes?

And the same problem applies because if they say they are not a PA, and only sell to contracted clients, there's no way for them to dismiss another corporation from writing another contract and opening up Wedding Cakes R Us. Now they've lost all control over the cake once it leaves the store and they might as well just make a contract with an individual who doesn't mind doing gay weddings to set their cakes up. Same difference.

 

[Edgetho]

While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.

That's why it's called a 'contract'

You really are stupid

All of you. Every single one of you. Every stinking dimocrap in here can NOT tell the difference between government actions, contractual obligations and personal, civil actions.

They're different.

You reached your ceiling in the 4th Grade

 

[Siete]

With FREEDOM comes a lot of things.

Freedom of speech protects speech that is onerous and divisive.

There is that freedom that IS always overlooked..... The Freedom To Be Stupid.

If someone wants to turn down making money on baking a cake for homos, IMO they have that freedom..... The freedom to be stupid.

And here's why..... The gays who want the cake approached the Baker, not vice versa.

If that Baker were the only Baker within 500 Miles or was a government monopoly -- I'd think differently.

But, it's like -- Aren't there any gay bakers? No.... I've never heard of one. Seems that craft doesn't attract many gays.

Aren't there any gay Florists? No, seems gays don't like flower arrangements.

And heaven forbid a gay couple ever wants a Designer to do their House.... Good God, there are absolutely NO GAYS in that field of endeavor.

dimocraps are just scumbags, people. There's no discrimination going on here. This whole thing was made up put of whole cloth.

dimocrap scum do this shit ALL THE TIME.

I remember back in the day when corporal punishment was a big deal in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM, the NEA and ACLU got together and FOUND some parent who would sue on her kid's behalf.

Just like all this shit -- It's all made up, people. It's all BULLSHIT.

These things just don't happen in real, every day life. And if they do, they're the rare exception and not the rule.

There's just one thing you need to remember in all this -- At all times....

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

period

you sure said a of garbage just to get your shot at dems in at the very end.

 

[Katzndogz]

if a gay church refused to do straight weddings the RW's would be crapping in their shorts screaming discrimination ..

rumor has it, the pastor with this epiphany is a closet homo.

Wouldn't that pretty much be expected? No one expects synagogues to perform a mass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.

If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.

Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.

The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.

Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.

You are wrong. Just wrong. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. If the terms only include wedding cakes it includes nothing else. If the contract is to supply brownies to the military it doesn't include cookies.

No, I'm not wrong. You cannot be both a PA and a private not open to the public firm at the very same time. You would have to be two firms with a joint-operating agreement to use the "shared" facilities. If a customer walks in a sees a wedding cake for sale, you're screwed because in the front you are a PA, which makes the entire business a PA. It's not the offerings that make the difference, it's the setting.

And just because you make brownies on the one contract and cookies on another if they want to write new contracts for both, both have to be offered.

"Public accommodations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[2][3] The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation."

 

[Katzndogz]

It would work quite well. There are thousands of exclusive contracts. I just got a shingles shot. My pharmacy is CVS. The insurance company has an exclusive contract with Walgreens. I had to go to Walgreens. Public roads notwithstanding. Many companies have contracts with UPS or FEX EX. Public roads notwithstanding the contract is valid.

Yes it is an excellent solution and takes the issue out of public accommodation laws.

While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.

Yes. But the company using UPS or FEDEX is not free to use another carrier. Not any more than my insurance company was free to let me go to CVS.

It's not unlike an artist contracting an exclusive agreement with a gallery or an actor under an exclusive agreement with a studio. Even a singer under exclusive agreement with a label.

For a baker to enter into an exclusive agreement with a church to make wedding cakes means that all wedding cakes made by that baker already belong to the church.

That would depend on the contract but say the church signs one of those, to only use cakes at weddings made by one baker. What do you do if the bride doesn't like their cakes?

And the same problem applies because if they say they are not a PA, and only sell to contracted clients, there's no way for them to dismiss another corporation from writing another contract and opening up Wedding Cakes R Us. Now they've lost all control over the cake once it leaves the store and they might as well just make a contract with an individual who doesn't mind doing gay weddings to set their cakes up. Same difference.

If the bride doesn't like the cake she is not a party to the contract and is free to get a cake anywhere she likes.

If a baker opens Wedding Cakes R Us they are free to establish competition.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

When a business is serviced by taxpayer roads and sidewalks and protected by police and firemen paid for by taxpayers, it does not get to choose which of those taxpayers it will serve. I wonder if these same florists refuse to service marriages of divorced people or baby showers for unwed mothers or get out of jail parties for bankers who nearly destroyed America's economy (if any of them ever actually went to jail). You are selling flowers and cakes and taking photos. You are not being asked for your approval of the event or forced to be a member of the wedding party. Selective morality is not really morality at all.

BINGO!

Like I said, if those people REALLY want to go that route, then fine. But they don't need to use public methods of transport then, either. Let em rely of Jeebus to get magic cake from point a to point b.

Then they get to live here tax free right? No income taxes, no sales taxes etc.

 

[Nosmo King]

WWJB? What would Jesus bake?

or

WWJH

Who would Jesus hate?

And the basic tenets of Christianity go ignored by the righteous and pious.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While the contract may be exclusive, Fed Ex and UPS both have to be willing to make a deal with all takers, not, sorry, we don't deliver for Jews.

That's why it's called a 'contract'

You really are stupid

All of you. Every single one of you. Every stinking dimocrap in here can NOT tell the difference between government actions, contractual obligations and personal, civil actions.

They're different.

You reached your ceiling in the 4th Grade

I'm not worried about the contract, it's who such a thing must be offered to if that's how you do business. Fed Ex can't say we serve Christians but not Jews, even if they only service either if they have a contract.

 

[Katzndogz]

Christian caterers should only serve weddings via direct contracts with churches.

Fabulous idea!

"... bakers, photographers and others who provide wedding-related services should engage in exclusive and direct contracts with Bible-believing churches.
"While these business owners could still serve the general public — gays and lesbians included — for other occasions related to their services, weddings would only be afforded to contracted houses of worship and their affiliated church members.
“To have them engage in contractual obligations within their faith communities and not offer those services to the general public,” Conner said. “To kind of reclaim the sanctity of marriage, which the church has lost. We’ve done some things to lose some ground on some of these issues by not holding marriage in high enough value.”

"Conner expanded on this work-around in a post published on Charisma News, in which he emphasized that these contracts between wedding-related businesses and churches would need to be “exclusive and binding,” claiming that the Supreme Court would have a hard time undoing contract laws that have been established.
“Christian merchants who serve weddings can protect their religious liberty by only offering their services to Christian Churches in exclusive, binding contracts,” he wrote. “Merchants can continue to provide all other services as usual, but protect the free practice of their faith by contracting exclusively and specifically with Bible believing congregations to provide wedding services for their members.”
"Conner continued, “Merchants would not be limited to only one faith community, but would be free from offering wedding services to the general public.”

Pastor Unveils Gay Wedding Strategy That He Says Could Turn the Debate Over Christian Business Owners and Same-Sex Nuptials on Its Head TheBlaze.com

Wouldn't work. The courts would pierce that contractual veil in a heartbeat, and I see the pun. You can sure try but it won't work for most couples or in most cases. The church and the individual have an equal standing to make a contract. If the services were only offered to one, without the vendor being established a "religious" entity, it wouldn't pass the courts. Since those kind of wedding services are not aspects of faith, it would die in the first hearing.

If you only sell wedding cakes to churches, but you are a PA, the first time another corporate entity, say a movie studio, wants one, you're fucked if you don't make it.

Not even close. The PA part is general baked goods. That's all that is offered to the public. Wedding cakes are not offered to the public. The service would have to be paid for through the contracting parties.

The PA part comes with the business, not the offerings. The entire business would have to be only baked goods sold under contract, which means it wouldn't be a PA.

Or, you could try to establish it as a religious entity, like a monastery that makes coffee. That would be a serious stretch in this case.

You are wrong. Just wrong. A contract is defined by the terms of the contract. If the terms only include wedding cakes it includes nothing else. If the contract is to supply brownies to the military it doesn't include cookies.

No, I'm not wrong. You cannot be both a PA and a private not open to the public firm at the very same time. You would have to be two firms with a joint-operating agreement to use the "shared" facilities. If a customer walks in a sees a wedding cake for sale, you're screwed because in the front you are a PA, which makes the entire business a PA. It's not the offerings that make the difference, it's the setting.

And just because you make brownies on the one contract and cookies on another if they want to write new contracts for both, both have to be offered.

"Public accommodations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[2][3] The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation."

Your mind is so made up you can't understand how wrong you are.

If someone walked into the bakery and ordered a wedding cake and a dozen cupcakes the baker would be in breach of the exclusive contract to supply wedding cakes only to the church but would not be in breach for the cupcakes because cupcakes are not a part of the agreement.