Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[NYcarbineer]

And equal treatment under the law is not?

That 14th amendment just sticks in some people's craw.

Equal protection under the law depends on the definition of "equal." Same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal, they are different.

.

So are black skin and white skin.

 

[Katzndogz]

I hear the cry of 'special rights' from Conservatives every time rights are protected for a class of citizens Conservatives hate. Rights aren't 'special' when they are being protected and extended to groups you hate. Rights are being maintained as they are to be maintained: for all citizens.

And how is society less tyrannical when bigotry rules rather than equality? Something about equality that is particularly disturbing to Conservatives? I know that egalitarianism is outside the Conservative lexicon. But equality? for all the faux "We love America" crap spewed by Conservatives, one would think that a concept like equality is something to be embraced rather than scorned.

Singling out groups for special treatment is contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives are for equality. FOr everyone. Liberals want special treatment. Special treatment for blacks. For women. For Muslims. For gays. Etc. How many special interest group bills have the Democrats sponsored and passed?

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

Not everyone uses the same wedding planner. There isn't one wedding planner universally used and someone is deprived of having a wedding planner if they can't get this one.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? Then every civil rights bill, every bill concerning equal pay, every bill guaranteeing marriage equality has been passed either unanimously or at least sponsored by Conservatives? Guess again, idiot! Conservatives ALWAYS block moves to ensure equality!

And you clumsily stumbled passed all the points I made because A) it's painfully true and B) it does not help you argument for bigotry.

No, every bill of the type you mention seeks to insure equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.
You fail.

What a convenient skirt you hide behind. Cloak bigotry in terms like "equal outcomes" and sit back and smirk. Where did you get this stupid talking point? Some right wing pundit?

Translation: He is correct and I cannot counter it so I will insult him
You're a worthless piece of shit. Sorry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Singling out groups for special treatment is contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives are for equality. FOr everyone. Liberals want special treatment. Special treatment for blacks. For women. For Muslims. For gays. Etc. How many special interest group bills have the Democrats sponsored and passed?

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So they can turn away an interracial hetero couple? They can turn away a Jewish couple? They can turn away 2 dwarves? They can turn away a couple they think are white trash, because they don't like white trash?

 

[Nosmo King]

Singling out groups for special treatment is contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives are for equality. FOr everyone. Liberals want special treatment. Special treatment for blacks. For women. For Muslims. For gays. Etc. How many special interest group bills have the Democrats sponsored and passed?

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

 

[martybegan]

That 14th amendment just sticks in some people's craw.

Equal protection under the law depends on the definition of "equal." Same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal, they are different.

.

So are black skin and white skin.

Not enough so to warrant the consitutionality of miscogenation laws, which is what loving v. virgina struck down.

And except for melanin concentration black and white is biologically the same. Men and women less so.

I would vote for same sex marriage if it was put to a referendum in my state, but it is still not equal to opposite sex marriage.

 

[Nosmo King]

No, every bill of the type you mention seeks to insure equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.
You fail.

What a convenient skirt you hide behind. Cloak bigotry in terms like "equal outcomes" and sit back and smirk. Where did you get this stupid talking point? Some right wing pundit?

Translation: He is correct and I cannot counter it so I will insult him
You're a worthless piece of shit. Sorry.

What are you doing but insulting me? You are behaving in a pattern psychologists call "projecting" and I pity you your stupidity for it is not ignorance but a willful stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Singling out groups for special treatment is contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Conservatives are for equality. FOr everyone. Liberals want special treatment. Special treatment for blacks. For women. For Muslims. For gays. Etc. How many special interest group bills have the Democrats sponsored and passed?

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

Not everyone uses the same wedding planner. There isn't one wedding planner universally used and someone is deprived of having a wedding planner if they can't get this one.

So? You want to justify discrimination because somewhere else in the world there's some place that doesn't discriminate?

lol, this forum if nothing else works like a charm for exposing the bigotry of conservatives.

 

[martybegan]

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

I see no issue with the above provided the buisness is in the open about it. Let the market decide. The woolworth segregated counter was a symbol of government mandated segregation, which was wrong and is unconsitutional. What was taken as the next step, banning buisness from VOLUNTARILY imposing restrictions on who they want to do business with to me was overreach.

To you going against your morals may not be real harm, but to the baker it sure as hell might be. So to you his discomfort of going against his morals is somehow to be ignored simply to make some gay couple able to use his services, even if there are other options availible who would be more than willing to do them?

What this is isnt about equality at that point, its about forcing people to have the same moral compass as yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, every bill of the type you mention seeks to insure equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.
You fail.

What a convenient skirt you hide behind. Cloak bigotry in terms like "equal outcomes" and sit back and smirk. Where did you get this stupid talking point? Some right wing pundit?

Translation: He is correct and I cannot counter it so I will insult him
You're a worthless piece of shit. Sorry.

The outcome of anti-discrimination laws is that people get a legally protected right to be treated equally.

Yes that is seeking an 'equal outcome'.

 

[Nosmo King]

Equal protection under the law depends on the definition of "equal." Same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal, they are different.

.

So are black skin and white skin.

Not enough so to warrant the consitutionality of miscogenation laws, which is what loving v. virgina struck down.

And except for melanin concentration black and white is biologically the same. Men and women less so.

I would vote for same sex marriage if it was put to a referendum in my state, but it is still not equal to opposite sex marriage.

Not equal how? Same sex marriage should not provide the same benefits and protections hetero marriage provides? Something in the marriage license, the contract established by two consenting adults essentially different because of the gender of the bride and groom?

Or not equal in the eyes of a bigoted segment of society? And should those few warped sad folks have the right to dictate equality when their own views on equality are so far from real?

 

[Katzndogz]

The shame of it is, that there are people offering services that specifically target homosexuals, that's the business they want. Yet gays will search out that one person with an objection and demand to have their services. What an absolute SLAP to anyone who has taken the time and spent the money to attract gay clientele. Many of these purveyors might be gay themselves! At least blacks will support black owned businesses. Hispanics support hispanic businesses. Only gays take the time to search out whatever business where the owner might have an objection and want to patronize that business to the exclusion of other more friendly operations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

I see no issue with the above provided the buisness is in the open about it. Let the market decide. The woolworth segregated counter was a symbol of government mandated segregation, which was wrong and is unconsitutional. What was taken as the next step, banning buisness from VOLUNTARILY imposing restrictions on who they want to do business with to me was overreach.

To you going against your morals may not be real harm, but to the baker it sure as hell might be. So to you his discomfort of going against his morals is somehow to be ignored simply to make some gay couple able to use his services, even if there are other options availible who would be more than willing to do them?

What this is isnt about equality at that point, its about forcing people to have the same moral compass as yours.

Where do you find in the Consititution any explicit or implicit right to discriminate against various groups of people?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal protection under the law depends on the definition of "equal." Same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal, they are different.

.

So are black skin and white skin.

Not enough so to warrant the consitutionality of miscogenation laws, which is what loving v. virgina struck down.

And except for melanin concentration black and white is biologically the same. Men and women less so.

I would vote for same sex marriage if it was put to a referendum in my state, but it is still not equal to opposite sex marriage.

So you would allow people in the wedding business to discriminate against same sex marriages,

but not interracial marriages?

 

[Katzndogz]

Being able to use the same wedding planner for your wedding as everyone else is not special treatment.

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

I see no issue with the above provided the buisness is in the open about it. Let the market decide. The woolworth segregated counter was a symbol of government mandated segregation, which was wrong and is unconsitutional. What was taken as the next step, banning buisness from VOLUNTARILY imposing restrictions on who they want to do business with to me was overreach.

To you going against your morals may not be real harm, but to the baker it sure as hell might be. So to you his discomfort of going against his morals is somehow to be ignored simply to make some gay couple able to use his services, even if there are other options availible who would be more than willing to do them?

What this is isnt about equality at that point, its about forcing people to have the same moral compass as yours.

It's interesting that at one point you said we need to draw the line somewhere, but every other post of yours seems to suggest that the line ought to be drawn just below 'anything goes' when it comes to business practices,

and just above 'sorry about that' when it comes to individuals.

Do you really think the spirit of our Constitution was meant to be that slanted towards businesses,

and away from individual rights and equality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isnt a right either. Your desire to use wedding planner X should not trump wedding planner X's right to work for who they choose to work for.

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

Because the baker who bakes the wedding cake actually has to participate in the wedding. They have to go there. They don't put the cake in a box and send it off with the bride and groom. Of course you might find this in the future. Bakers will be happy to bake the cakes but that's as far as it goes.

No one should have to perform a personal service for anyone. Not ever. The black person stopping by a lunch counter does not have the right to demand the grill operator appear at their home and whip up a burger.

lol, that is a gem of ignorance.

 

[Clementine]

Do you think I should be allowed to refuse to serve people who are black?

Does your religion forbid it?

Some religions are against gays and we can't make people go against their religion.

The same bible that's used as an excuse to discriminate against gays was used to discriminate against blacks. A judge even used the bible as justification for anti-miscegenation laws. That's okay?

No, it's never okay to twist religion to discriminate against people because of color or to harm people in any way because they don't share your religion. I also would appreciate links to determine whether your statement is accurate. If it is, it's wrong. Period.

Most religions don't approve of gays and there is little you can do to change their minds. In this country, we have separation of church and state, so unless you're Muslim and your religion is your government, then we have to separate religious beliefs from our laws. I also think that private businesses have the right to discriminate. If people don't approve, then the business will not thrive. And who wants to help a business profit if they are hateful enough to refuse service or jobs to minorities?

You can't change people's hearts by force, you must let them learn the hard way.

Giving people rights is like giving them rope. They can show humanity and climb to the top or they can treat their fellow human beings harshly and hang themselves. At least that is how it would be in a sane world. Government's job is to create and enforce fair laws that keep people from cheating and taking advantage of people. Actually, government is the guilty party when it comes to mistreating people who are trying to make an honest living. We always get screwed, while the wealthy campaign contributors have no worries.

 

[martybegan]

So the lunch counter at Woolworth's can simply refuse to serve the Black teenagers there because they are Black? The real estate agent can use his personal bigotry to deny a home buyer from a specific neighborhood because the real estate agent is a knuckle dragging bigot?

What REAL harm comes to the baker who is asked to bake a wedding cake for someone he fears and is hatred toward? is the law set up to protect and encourage bigotry and stupidity and hate and fear and other Conservative "virtues"?

I see no issue with the above provided the buisness is in the open about it. Let the market decide. The woolworth segregated counter was a symbol of government mandated segregation, which was wrong and is unconsitutional. What was taken as the next step, banning buisness from VOLUNTARILY imposing restrictions on who they want to do business with to me was overreach.

To you going against your morals may not be real harm, but to the baker it sure as hell might be. So to you his discomfort of going against his morals is somehow to be ignored simply to make some gay couple able to use his services, even if there are other options availible who would be more than willing to do them?

What this is isnt about equality at that point, its about forcing people to have the same moral compass as yours.

It's interesting that at one point you said we need to draw the line somewhere, but every other post of yours seems to suggest that the line ought to be drawn just below 'anything goes' when it comes to business practices,

and just above 'sorry about that' when it comes to individuals.

Do you really think the spirit of our Constitution was meant to be that slanted towards businesses,

and away from individual rights and equality?

So when a person runs a buisiness they cease to be an individual? Being a baker requires you to check away your rights just to make some donuts?

The spirit of our consitution was to limit what government can do to individuals, even business owners. This limitiation was at the state and federal levels. What you seek is imposing your own will on the actions of others using the big stick of government to get your way.

There is nothing to gain from forcing a person to work with someone they do not want to work with, or in the event they refuse, ruining thier life and thier livelyhood. The only thing gained is some smug satisfaction people like you get when you force your ways on other people.

 

[thanatos144]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

this is the beginning. First its bakers and caterers then it will be Churches and damn the first amendment! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Out of that amendment how much has this administration tried to circumvent? All of it