SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[Asclepias]

Again, you only state what you want to happen, you never go into why it is so imperative that you force people to go against their morals to be in business and make a living. Your only position is that they should be forced "because I say so."

The only monotony is your inability to realize that in the goal of fairness you have become the bully along with the government. but its OK, because the bullied parties are not a protected class, so **** them.

Again what I personally want to happen is not the issue. Again it is imperative to force people to abide by the law when they fail to realize their morals and or religious beliefs dont make the rules. Otherwise you have people being burned for being witches and stupid shit like that. Your refusal to grasp this concept can only lead me to conclude you are brain dead. If you dont like living with other people go discover another country and make up your own rules. Otherwise do what is best for living in harmony and stop being stupid.

So if I don't want to serve a ******* carpet kissing muslim camel jockey, the laws says that I have to? So either way you slice it, there will always be a slave in this equation.

You pretty much nailed it but no slaves involved. Either way you slice it you have the option of not running a business that caters to the public or conforming to the rules that govern businesses. From what I understand you still get paid while conforming to said rules thereby rendering the use of the word slave to an ignorant assumption. See how easy the concept is to understand?

 

[Spoonman]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
******* pricks.

i agree. the guy should just do the job and do a lousy job. oooooops sorry, i forgot to put film in the camera. hope you enjoyed your day

Doing a lousy job open the photographer up to a lawsuit anyway. Do a good job, but ruin the day, it's really not hard to destroy an event. I've done it many times.

how about a big greasy thumbprint on the lense

 

[MrMax]

Again what I personally want to happen is not the issue. Again it is imperative to force people to abide by the law when they fail to realize their morals and or religious beliefs dont make the rules. Otherwise you have people being burned for being witches and stupid shit like that. Your refusal to grasp this concept can only lead me to conclude you are brain dead. If you dont like living with other people go discover another country and make up your own rules. Otherwise do what is best for living in harmony and stop being stupid.

So if I don't want to serve a ******* carpet kissing muslim camel jockey, the laws says that I have to? So either way you slice it, there will always be a slave in this equation.

You pretty much nailed it but no slaves involved. Either way you slice it you have the option of not running a business that caters to the public or conforming to the rules that govern businesses. From what I understand you still get paid while conforming to said rules thereby rendering the use of the word slave to an ignorant assumption. See how easy the concept is to understand?

If I'm forced to serve Musbombs and their 19 sons called Osama, then I'm a slave to the law. Can I swear at them or spit on their items while I serve them to give them the idea that they shouldn't come back?

 

[LoneLaugher]

So if I don't want to serve a ******* carpet kissing muslim camel jockey, the laws says that I have to? So either way you slice it, there will always be a slave in this equation.

You pretty much nailed it but no slaves involved. Either way you slice it you have the option of not running a business that caters to the public or conforming to the rules that govern businesses. From what I understand you still get paid while conforming to said rules thereby rendering the use of the word slave to an ignorant assumption. See how easy the concept is to understand?

If I'm forced to serve Musbombs and their 19 sons called Osama, then I'm a slave to the law. Can I swear at them or spit on their items while I serve them to give them the idea that they shouldn't come back?

Sure. That is very reasonable. Why wouldn't you?

 

[Asclepias]

So if I don't want to serve a ******* carpet kissing muslim camel jockey, the laws says that I have to? So either way you slice it, there will always be a slave in this equation.

You pretty much nailed it but no slaves involved. Either way you slice it you have the option of not running a business that caters to the public or conforming to the rules that govern businesses. From what I understand you still get paid while conforming to said rules thereby rendering the use of the word slave to an ignorant assumption. See how easy the concept is to understand?

If I'm forced to serve Musbombs and their 19 sons called Osama, then I'm a slave to the law. Can I swear at them or spit on their items while I serve them to give them the idea that they shouldn't come back?

You are a confused bigot. You dont have to run a business or work for free. You can do what you like but remember there are consequences for your actions.

 

[MrMax]

You pretty much nailed it but no slaves involved. Either way you slice it you have the option of not running a business that caters to the public or conforming to the rules that govern businesses. From what I understand you still get paid while conforming to said rules thereby rendering the use of the word slave to an ignorant assumption. See how easy the concept is to understand?

If I'm forced to serve Musbombs and their 19 sons called Osama, then I'm a slave to the law. Can I swear at them or spit on their items while I serve them to give them the idea that they shouldn't come back?

You are a confused bigot. You dont have to run a business or work for free. You can do what you like but remember there are consequences for your actions.

Like what? Carpet kissers will boycott my business? Sand pounders will stop coming to America?

 

[martybegan]

The owner needs to look into his legal business status. If he wants to partake of the benefits of his status he will need to deal with the more unsavory parts of that status as well. Stop whining. You are becoming monotonous with your crying.

Again, you only state what you want to happen, you never go into why it is so imperative that you force people to go against their morals to be in business and make a living. Your only position is that they should be forced "because I say so."

The only monotony is your inability to realize that in the goal of fairness you have become the bully along with the government. but its OK, because the bullied parties are not a protected class, so **** them.

Again what I personally want to happen is not the issue. Again it is imperative to force people to abide by the law when they fail to realize their morals and or religious beliefs dont make the rules. Otherwise you have people being burned for being witches and stupid shit like that. Your refusal to grasp this concept can only lead me to conclude you are brain dead. If you dont like living with other people go discover another country and make up your own rules. Otherwise do what is best for living in harmony and stop being stupid.

Argumentum ad absurdum. How you go from a gay couple having to spend an hour finding and going to another photographer to burning at the stake shows you have no logical reasoning behind your position. Its simply emotion.

And living with other people is not the issue here. These people can all live alongside each other with no issues. The issues come up when asshats like you justify forcing people to go against their morals in the name of fairness.

The only brain dead position is yours. You are being fascist without even realizing it.

 

[Asclepias]

If I'm forced to serve Musbombs and their 19 sons called Osama, then I'm a slave to the law. Can I swear at them or spit on their items while I serve them to give them the idea that they shouldn't come back?

You are a confused bigot. You dont have to run a business or work for free. You can do what you like but remember there are consequences for your actions.

Like what? Carpet kissers will boycott my business? Sand pounders will stop coming to America?

Yes things like that or you may simply get your ass kicked and humbled. All options are pretty much open on what could happen to you in the event you spit on someone or something.

 

[Asclepias]

Again, you only state what you want to happen, you never go into why it is so imperative that you force people to go against their morals to be in business and make a living. Your only position is that they should be forced "because I say so."

The only monotony is your inability to realize that in the goal of fairness you have become the bully along with the government. but its OK, because the bullied parties are not a protected class, so **** them.

Again what I personally want to happen is not the issue. Again it is imperative to force people to abide by the law when they fail to realize their morals and or religious beliefs dont make the rules. Otherwise you have people being burned for being witches and stupid shit like that. Your refusal to grasp this concept can only lead me to conclude you are brain dead. If you dont like living with other people go discover another country and make up your own rules. Otherwise do what is best for living in harmony and stop being stupid.

Argumentum ad absurdum. How you go from a gay couple having to spend an hour finding and going to another photographer to burning at the stake shows you have no logical reasoning behind your position. Its simply emotion.

And living with other people is not the issue here. These people can all live alongside each other with no issues. The issues come up when asshats like you justify forcing people to go against their morals in the name of fairness.

The only brain dead position is yours. You are being fascist without even realizing it.

Actually its not argumentum ad absurdum. Since that very thing occurred because of religious beliefs it is very relevant. If I had cited something that did not happen before I could see your point. As it is your position is not backed up with proof. Mine is. You start allowing people to discriminate in the public sector due to religious reasons and all type of wild stuff can happen and has. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[MrMax]

You are a confused bigot. You dont have to run a business or work for free. You can do what you like but remember there are consequences for your actions.

Like what? Carpet kissers will boycott my business? Sand pounders will stop coming to America?

Yes things like that or you may simply get your ass kicked and humbled. All options are pretty much open on what could happen to you in the event you spit on someone or something.

You think a muslim coward who beats his wife would take me on? You're ******* nuts!!

 

[martybegan]

Again what I personally want to happen is not the issue. Again it is imperative to force people to abide by the law when they fail to realize their morals and or religious beliefs dont make the rules. Otherwise you have people being burned for being witches and stupid shit like that. Your refusal to grasp this concept can only lead me to conclude you are brain dead. If you dont like living with other people go discover another country and make up your own rules. Otherwise do what is best for living in harmony and stop being stupid.

Argumentum ad absurdum. How you go from a gay couple having to spend an hour finding and going to another photographer to burning at the stake shows you have no logical reasoning behind your position. Its simply emotion.

And living with other people is not the issue here. These people can all live alongside each other with no issues. The issues come up when asshats like you justify forcing people to go against their morals in the name of fairness.

The only brain dead position is yours. You are being fascist without even realizing it.

Actually its not argumentum ad absurdum. Since that very thing occurred because of religious beliefs it is very relevant. If I had cited something that did not happen before I could see your point. As it is your position is not backed up with proof. Mine is. You start allowing people to discriminate in the public sector due to religious reasons and all type of wild stuff can happen and has. Can you prove me wrong?

You are citing something that happened centuries ago. Plus burning at the stake is an actual crime, i.e. murder. Making someone spend an hour going to another baker or photographer is not a crime. In addition, this is not public sector discrimination, it is private sector discrimination. Public sector is government related.

And considering you are asking me to prove wrong a supposition on future events, your question isn't really a question, but a simple "gotcha" statement I have now deftly avoided.

 

[Asclepias]

Argumentum ad absurdum. How you go from a gay couple having to spend an hour finding and going to another photographer to burning at the stake shows you have no logical reasoning behind your position. Its simply emotion.

And living with other people is not the issue here. These people can all live alongside each other with no issues. The issues come up when asshats like you justify forcing people to go against their morals in the name of fairness.

The only brain dead position is yours. You are being fascist without even realizing it.

Actually its not argumentum ad absurdum. Since that very thing occurred because of religious beliefs it is very relevant. If I had cited something that did not happen before I could see your point. As it is your position is not backed up with proof. Mine is. You start allowing people to discriminate in the public sector due to religious reasons and all type of wild stuff can happen and has. Can you prove me wrong?

You are citing something that happened centuries ago. Plus burning at the stake is an actual crime, i.e. murder. Making someone spend an hour going to another baker or photographer is not a crime. In addition, this is not public sector discrimination, it is private sector discrimination. Public sector is government related.

And considering you are asking me to prove wrong a supposition on future events, your question isn't really a question, but a simple "gotcha" statement I have now deftly avoided.

Yes you did deftly avoid explaining how an event that occurred because of religious beliefs gone wild has nothing to do with this. I'm surprised that you actually have the ability to admit you ran from addressing the issue. Good for you Marty.

 

[Ernie S.]

In the public square, yup, you accept others.

In private association, you don't have to.

A photographer has a private contract with someone they do a job for. Why should the government be able to force someone to either go against their beliefs or go out of business?

There is no public interaction here, the government, which has to be neutral, is not and should not be involved.

And if restaurants don't want black people to sit at the counter then good for them

The photographers refused service on religious their beliefs. Amendment #1 Us Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution protecting the right to be a racist.
Equating this situation to blacks or Italians is apples/oranges.

 

[martybegan]

Actually its not argumentum ad absurdum. Since that very thing occurred because of religious beliefs it is very relevant. If I had cited something that did not happen before I could see your point. As it is your position is not backed up with proof. Mine is. You start allowing people to discriminate in the public sector due to religious reasons and all type of wild stuff can happen and has. Can you prove me wrong?

You are citing something that happened centuries ago. Plus burning at the stake is an actual crime, i.e. murder. Making someone spend an hour going to another baker or photographer is not a crime. In addition, this is not public sector discrimination, it is private sector discrimination. Public sector is government related.

And considering you are asking me to prove wrong a supposition on future events, your question isn't really a question, but a simple "gotcha" statement I have now deftly avoided.

Yes you did deftly avoid explaining how an event that occurred because of religious beliefs gone wild has nothing to do with this. I'm surprised that you actually have the ability to admit you ran from addressing the issue. Good for you Marty.

You bring up Witch burnings in Salem during the 17th century and you think it applies to today? And to allowing a photographer to deny service to a gay couple? This will suddenly result in gay lynchings? There is no issue to run from, because your point is idiotic and preposterous.

And again, **** you you ******* rep turned off pansy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, you don't get to interpret the Constitution for the rest of us.

SCOTUS does and has.

That's the end of it. Except for the caterwauling, so cauter and waul all you want.

Since you want to waul about neg, here is one for you.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you don't get to interpret the Constitution for the rest of us.

SCOTUS does and has.

That's the end of it. Except for the caterwauling, so cauter and waul all you want.

Since you want to waul about neg, here is one for you.

Stop being a White Knight Prick. Go **** yourself for the neg you threw at me. Go **** yourself for being a lying prick. and finally go **** yourself on general principle.

Also learn to spell you ignorant asshole.

So SCOTUS saying Citizens United and the recent ruling means its the end of it for those things as well?

And again, as always, go **** yourself.

 

[Asclepias]

You are citing something that happened centuries ago. Plus burning at the stake is an actual crime, i.e. murder. Making someone spend an hour going to another baker or photographer is not a crime. In addition, this is not public sector discrimination, it is private sector discrimination. Public sector is government related.

And considering you are asking me to prove wrong a supposition on future events, your question isn't really a question, but a simple "gotcha" statement I have now deftly avoided.

Yes you did deftly avoid explaining how an event that occurred because of religious beliefs gone wild has nothing to do with this. I'm surprised that you actually have the ability to admit you ran from addressing the issue. Good for you Marty.

You bring up Witch burnings in Salem during the 17th century and you think it applies to today? And to allowing a photographer to deny service to a gay couple? This will suddenly result in gay lynchings? There is no issue to run from, because your point is idiotic and preposterous.

And again, **** you you ******* rep turned off pansy.

Yes it applies to today. It may be extreme but its an example of the danger of letting religious beliefs rule. Where did I say this specific incident of allowing a photographer to deny service to a gay couple would result in witch burnings? Do you understand the meaning of example? An example is not a forecast of the future. It is simply proof of an incident.

You should watch your temper before you blow a gasket. Dont be enraged you cant neg me. Think of it this way. You no longer have a crutch to release your frustrations about me pointing out how stupid your argument is. Just like you cant neg me I cant neg you. However, I can tear your argument to shreds and you have to think hard to come up with statements to repair it or quit.

 

[Yurt]

jakestarkey seems to believe that no one, but a USSC justice, can have an opinion or interpret the constitution....we should all just be sheep and obey our government

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, you don't get to interpret the Constitution for the rest of us.

SCOTUS does and has.

That's the end of it. Except for the caterwauling, so cauter and waul all you want.

Since you want to waul about neg, here is one for you.

Stop being a White Knight Prick. Go **** yourself for the neg you threw at me. Go **** yourself for being a lying prick. and finally go **** yourself on general principle. Also learn to spell you ignorant asshole. So SCOTUS saying Citizens United and the recent ruling means its the end of it for those things as well? And again, as always, go **** yourself.

It's the end of it for you, sure.

You whine about neg, then you get negged. Fact, son.

So cauter and waul, doan' meen nuthin' homie.

 

[martybegan]

Yes you did deftly avoid explaining how an event that occurred because of religious beliefs gone wild has nothing to do with this. I'm surprised that you actually have the ability to admit you ran from addressing the issue. Good for you Marty.

You bring up Witch burnings in Salem during the 17th century and you think it applies to today? And to allowing a photographer to deny service to a gay couple? This will suddenly result in gay lynchings? There is no issue to run from, because your point is idiotic and preposterous.

And again, **** you you ******* rep turned off pansy.

Yes it applies to today. It may be extreme but its an example of the danger of letting religious beliefs rule. Where did I say this specific incident of allowing a photographer to deny service to a gay couple would result in witch burnings? Do you understand the meaning of example? An example is not a forecast of the future. It is simply proof of an incident.

You should watch your temper before you blow a gasket. Dont be enraged you cant neg me. Think of it this way. You no longer have a crutch to release your frustrations about me pointing out how stupid your argument is. Just like you cant neg me I cant neg you. However, I can tear your argument to shreds and you have to think hard to come up with statements to repair it or quit.

It does not apply at all. There are no rational people out there looking to burn gay people as witches, or burn witches at the stake. Allowing people to refuse service in the private sphere will never lead to lynchings and burnings. Your point is quite frankly, retarded.

I just call you out as the pansy you are. If you had any balls your rep would be on. I probably wouldn't neg you, because this has been an actual debate, despite your points being idiotic, I just think people with their reps off are ******* cowards.