Refusal over personal beliefs

[kaz]

Ignorance is bliss?

If that were true, the left would be happy rather than so angry all the time

 

[kaz]

The problem is quite common. I recall someone telling me about when I was going to college. None of the local bars in the town where I went to school wanted to admit gays because it wouldn't be long before they were overrun with queers. No straight guy wants to own a gay bar.

That doesn't demonstrate a common problem. You pulled it out of your butt.

It's not a problem any longer because it's illegal. If queers take over your bar, your only solution is to sell. However, a few decades ago bar owners could still kick out queers if they wanted to. More than a few did, which makes it "common."

Yep, you still haven't shown where this is or ever was a problem.

If it's not a problem, why do you think government needs to force one solution on all business owners? Obviously you think that's a problem. We just support businesses making their own decision

What does that have to do with finger boy claiming a bunch of straight bars he attended in the 80s went gay?

Where did he say that?

 

[kaz]

Not what I said. He should be fined a hundred housand for every customer he didn't serve. You know, like if he didn't bake cakes for them

Well, no, that's not how the law works. sorry.

Yes, liberalism is a pick and choose ideology based on how you feel about a particular issue. It makes perfect sense to you that PA laws apply to baking a cake but not playing a guitar, doesn't it?

Nope, let me tell you why.

If Ted Nugent chose to cancel a show for whatever political reason and refund everyone's money then PA laws would not apply. Just as if a baker chose to close their business because they didn't like whatever laws are in place in their community, they could and PA laws wouldn't be an issue.

You guys, seriously have some awful arguments in this thread.

So Bruce isn't going to perform again? I call bull shit to that. Prove it

Uh, who said he isn't going to perform again?

You said if the baker closes his business, he doesn't have to bake a *** cake. So show that Bruce is closing his business since Bruce doesn't want to perform for gays in North Carolina

 

[kaz]

I only have personal experience. You can dispute it all you want, but anyone who went to bars in the 80s knows it's true.

Well, your personal experience isn't worth anything. But, please tell us about all the bars you went to back in the 80s that magically turned gay...hmm, something to ponder.

I swear mom, that was a Popsicle when I put it in my mouth.

It's good enough for me. I don't care whether you believe it.

You should start a one man forum.

Agreed. And if you enter his forum, there's still only one man

Oh, I see what you did there Kaz, you sneaky son of a *****, you almost have a sense of humor.

I'm funny as shit, leftists are just too angry to see it

 

[kaz]

It's not a problem any longer because it's illegal. If queers take over your bar, your only solution is to sell. However, a few decades ago bar owners could still kick out queers if they wanted to. More than a few did, which makes it "common."

Yep, you still haven't shown where this is or ever was a problem.

If it's not a problem, why do you think government needs to force one solution on all business owners? Obviously you think that's a problem. We just support businesses making their own decision

What does that have to do with finger boy claiming a bunch of straight bars he attended in the 80s went gay?

That isn't what I said.

Whatever you said you can't/won't back it up with anything so it doesn't really matter.

Seriously? You didn't get what he said?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

Talk about false comparison fallacy, are you really so ******* stupid that you don't know the Commerce Clause is a damn federal power to regulate interstate commerce? It has absolutely nothing to do with state regulations.

Also most all rock stars are corporations, a business, they enter into a contract to perform, if they fail to perform they are in breach of that contract. Every person who held a ticket based on that contract should sue the sons a bitches for compensatory and punitive damages, for said breach.

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but your comment is sort of inviting.

Concerts usually have sponsors such as radio stations and the facility that provided the place in which the concert were to be held. I doubt ticket holders can sue the band (and who would go through all that trouble?) but I think the sponsors could hold the band liable.

Their agent did make out a physical contract with these people and they are expecting them to abide to it. An arena makes X amount of dollars when they hold an event, and a band just not showing up because they are idiots is no reason for the owners of the arena to lose money.

These events are usually made out months if not over a year in advance. The arena owners simply can't hold another concert or sporting event in their place last minute like this, therefore they lost tens of thousands of dollars.

Ticket holders can pressure the sponsors to take legal action against the band if they haven't filed a lawsuit as of yet.

 

[eagle1462010]

Go **** yourselves liberals,............

 

[JoeB131]

People bought tickets...........an exchange of money for a service.........being entertained..................But the bands said we will not entertain you because we disagree with the laws there after selling them the tickets.....................

So basically they are descriminating against all types of people there............Said they'd give them their money back..........In regards to the bakers they refused service without money........In the band situation they had already been paid......................

Tsk tsk..............

And everyone will get their money back. Since the refusal to perform applied to everyone, not just the people who supported this insane law, there was no "descrimination".

 

[JoeB131]

You really think that it is your right to tell people of the Christian faith to serve to a gay wedding????????? Even though it violates their faith and beliefs......................You really are that stupid..............

If they don't want to serve a gay wedding, they should get out of the wedding business.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, your personal experience isn't worth anything. But, please tell us about all the bars you went to back in the 80s that magically turned gay...hmm, something to ponder.

I swear mom, that was a Popsicle when I put it in my mouth.

It's good enough for me. I don't care whether you believe it.

You should start a one man forum.

Agreed. And if you enter his forum, there's still only one man

Oh, I see what you did there Kaz, you sneaky son of a *****, you almost have a sense of humor.

I'm funny as shit, leftists are just too angry to see it

Oh, I see it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, no, that's not how the law works. sorry.

Yes, liberalism is a pick and choose ideology based on how you feel about a particular issue. It makes perfect sense to you that PA laws apply to baking a cake but not playing a guitar, doesn't it?

Nope, let me tell you why.

If Ted Nugent chose to cancel a show for whatever political reason and refund everyone's money then PA laws would not apply. Just as if a baker chose to close their business because they didn't like whatever laws are in place in their community, they could and PA laws wouldn't be an issue.

You guys, seriously have some awful arguments in this thread.

So Bruce isn't going to perform again? I call bull shit to that. Prove it

Uh, who said he isn't going to perform again?

You said if the baker closes his business, he doesn't have to bake a *** cake. So show that Bruce is closing his business since Bruce doesn't want to perform for gays in North Carolina

Ok, the baker chooses to close his business for a day in protest over PA laws, better? Are you purposefully dense?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yep, you still haven't shown where this is or ever was a problem.

If it's not a problem, why do you think government needs to force one solution on all business owners? Obviously you think that's a problem. We just support businesses making their own decision

What does that have to do with finger boy claiming a bunch of straight bars he attended in the 80s went gay?

That isn't what I said.

Whatever you said you can't/won't back it up with anything so it doesn't really matter.

Seriously? You didn't get what he said?

I understand what he said and he can't back it up. You have a funny way of not making any valid points.

 

[kaz]

Yes, liberalism is a pick and choose ideology based on how you feel about a particular issue. It makes perfect sense to you that PA laws apply to baking a cake but not playing a guitar, doesn't it?

Nope, let me tell you why.

If Ted Nugent chose to cancel a show for whatever political reason and refund everyone's money then PA laws would not apply. Just as if a baker chose to close their business because they didn't like whatever laws are in place in their community, they could and PA laws wouldn't be an issue.

You guys, seriously have some awful arguments in this thread.

So Bruce isn't going to perform again? I call bull shit to that. Prove it

Uh, who said he isn't going to perform again?

You said if the baker closes his business, he doesn't have to bake a *** cake. So show that Bruce is closing his business since Bruce doesn't want to perform for gays in North Carolina

Ok, the baker chooses to close his business for a day in protest over PA laws, better? Are you purposefully dense?

Ah. You didn't say close his business "for a day." You said close his business. In re-reading it, you had to see that. Why just not say you weren't clear, but that's what you meant?

And I seriously doubt that would work. And it's ridiculous if the baker did have to do that because dickwad fags wanted to be asses and force him to bake a cake when there were other bakers all around.

BTW, I'll let you eat the cake someone is forced to bake, I'll pass myself. I'd have too many visuals of what they could have done with it. I just hope they keep in mind the militant queers who made them bake it aren't the only ones eating it

 

[kaz]

If it's not a problem, why do you think government needs to force one solution on all business owners? Obviously you think that's a problem. We just support businesses making their own decision

What does that have to do with finger boy claiming a bunch of straight bars he attended in the 80s went gay?

That isn't what I said.

Whatever you said you can't/won't back it up with anything so it doesn't really matter.

Seriously? You didn't get what he said?

I understand what he said and he can't back it up. You have a funny way of not making any valid points.

He said they didn't want to be gay bars. You said he said that they actually did turn into gay bars. You don't see the difference? Seriously?

 

[Fang]

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

It's actually the exact same concept, but much worse. Bruce already collected money for the concert. Accommodations like hotels, airfare, rental cars, sitters, etc were already set up by his fans. People and businesses in and around the area lost money because Bruce decided his personal belief was more important than those who gave him money and those who rely on the business. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, no one loses anything. The customer simply calls another baker. It's absolute hypocrisy at it worst.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you. Definitely racist inbreeding in your case.

 

[Centinel]

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

The commerce clause gives congress authority to regulate commerce among the several states. How are public accommodation laws necessary and proper for carrying this power into execution.

 

[bripat9643]

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

The commerce clause gives congress authority to regulate commerce among the several states. How are public accommodation laws necessary and proper for carrying this power into execution.

The commerce clause, correctly interpreted, means the federal government can regulate transactions that occur across state boundaries. It gives Congress no authority to regulate individual businesses.

 

[tyroneweaver]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

If a so-called "private citizen" stages a concert where the public is able to purchase tickets, then how is he not a public accommodation? The concert is "open to the public," is not not?

He cancelled the concert, everyone who had bought a ticket was treated the same.

These people have conjured up every fallacious analogy imaginable on this topic.

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

He's a business, just like any photographer, baker or florist.

if those homo's would have asked for a birthday cake I'm sure there would have been no problem.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Marriage dept......professor dumb ass................and yes transfers at any business can be arranged.....................To the kid remark..............

Who the **** cares what you think......I think I've made that very clear with my opinions on this board.............

The Marriage department? Really?

Texas gay marriage: How to get a marriage license in Travis County | All Ablog Austin

Now

You should be the one quietly going away, you've done yourself no favors at all.

I stand by my opinion.................I'll go away when I please............

You have a bar...........saved up to own your own business..........everything is great...............and then gays start visiting.........no biggie at first...........but it bothers some customers.....then more come......straghts leave.....more come and the next thing you have is bar known as the GAY BAR.........

Which is why in this day and age they should do a members only club set up.........so you can deny non members as you choose......many do this for this very reason......so their place stays how they want it to stay..............

If you're not a gay bar then you're not a gay bar. I guess you're probably going to advertize to the clientele you want. Anyway, I've never heard of this being a problem. So, might I suggest you go out and find that odd one in a million example and come back to us and report?

In other news. Do you know what a county clerk is?

CC in SLC are not forced to sign gay marriage licenses. They go find someone who will.

 

[OKTexas]

"Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"

The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.

That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.

Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.

Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling

Talk about false comparison fallacy, are you really so ******* stupid that you don't know the Commerce Clause is a damn federal power to regulate interstate commerce? It has absolutely nothing to do with state regulations.

Also most all rock stars are corporations, a business, they enter into a contract to perform, if they fail to perform they are in breach of that contract. Every person who held a ticket based on that contract should sue the sons a bitches for compensatory and punitive damages, for said breach.

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but your comment is sort of inviting.

Concerts usually have sponsors such as radio stations and the facility that provided the place in which the concert were to be held. I doubt ticket holders can sue the band (and who would go through all that trouble?) but I think the sponsors could hold the band liable.

Their agent did make out a physical contract with these people and they are expecting them to abide to it. An arena makes X amount of dollars when they hold an event, and a band just not showing up because they are idiots is no reason for the owners of the arena to lose money.

These events are usually made out months if not over a year in advance. The arena owners simply can't hold another concert or sporting event in their place last minute like this, therefore they lost tens of thousands of dollars.

Ticket holders can pressure the sponsors to take legal action against the band if they haven't filed a lawsuit as of yet.

Ticket holders would also have cause for an action, by spending their money, they also have a contract, sounds like a beautiful class action suit to me.