The videographers must shoot the video

[BluesLegend]

+

You want me to film a homosexual wedding? Sure just take out a bond guaranteeing me payment of my treatment for HIV a $10 million dollar bond should cover it. OH SNAP!!

You're incapable of filming a gay wedding without having gay sex with the participants?

That's a fascinating confession.

Those deviants may assault me, post a bond or find another photographer.

Is there a grownup response that you could post?

I'm mocking the left, you are not that quick on the uptake are you.

Try mocking it in an adult fashion then.

Your posts mock themselves fool.

 

[OldLady]

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

 

[BluesLegend]

Fee schedule:

Videoing a white, heterosexual wedding = $2,500.00
Videoing a black, heterosexual wedding = $2,500.00
Videoing a (insert race), heterosexual wedding = $2,500.00
Videoing a white, homosexual wedding = $350,000.00
Videoing a black, homosexual wedding = $350,000.00
Videoing a (insert race), homosexual wedding = $350,000.00

Is that legal?

I kind of like the exorbitant fees. If the SJW/PC police want to pay the money, they have no complaint. There was no refusal of services.

You want me to film a homosexual wedding? Sure just take out a bond guaranteeing me payment of my treatment for HIV a $10 million dollar bond should cover it. OH SNAP!!

You planning on having unprotected sex with the happy couple during the reception, or what?

A wedding full of drunk sexual deviants what could go wrong...wait I need to also require armed security to my quote.

What exactly are you so afraid of?

Do you think you'll catch the gay?

Good point I may dry heave and require EMT transport let me add that, this employment contract is getting long.

 

[OldLady]

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

 

[BluesLegend]

The problem is the LGBT community is targeting businesses, trying to entrap them for the sole purpose of suing them to win a cash judgement. These militant gays are going to ruin it for the rest of the gays.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

But that's the thing - these people don't just want to refuse service - in fact, I don't think that's even the main point. They want to do it loudly and publicly.

They want to advertise to the world that they won't serve gay people.

 

[jc456]

Hahahaha. Mummmm ha.

Many states have passed anti-homosexual discrimination laws.

There is no constitutional basis for overturning such laws enacted by the various states.

IMO, it should be added to the federal civil rights laws too.

why?

because!

because you say so? funny shit. It's what all of this loopy ideology shit has been about for 20 years now. fk you and the bus you came in on.

 

[jc456]

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

But that's the thing - these people don't just want to refuse service - in fact, I don't think that's even the main point. They want to do it loudly and publicly.

They want to advertise to the world that they won't serve gay people.

again, you want to shit on their rights that's it. fk you too. IO'm honoring their right to be who they are, and not forced on them by left ideology that seems to think it owns the fking world. fk you all.

but, but, but, nope, that's it.

 

[OldLady]

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

But that's the thing - these people don't just want to refuse service - in fact, I don't think that's even the main point. They want to do it loudly and publicly.

They want to advertise to the world that they won't serve gay people.

Well, they certainly wouldn't fit into my view of quiet compromise.

 

[OldLady]

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

But that's the thing - these people don't just want to refuse service - in fact, I don't think that's even the main point. They want to do it loudly and publicly.

They want to advertise to the world that they won't serve gay people.

again, you want to shit on their rights that's it. fk you too. IO'm honoring their right to be who they are, and not forced on them by left ideology that seems to think it owns the fking world. fk you all.

but, but, but, nope, that's it.

You seem to think you have every right in the world, but no one else does. With rights come responsibilities to be a good citizen. In this country, that means we don't discriminate against gays anymore.

 

[HappyJoy]

For being incompetent.

LLC good luck with collecting

Right, sure, LLCs are bullet proof against breach of contract lawsuits.

I laugh in your general direction, good luck finding a lawyer to take that case there's no money in suing some wedding photographer. Tissue?

Ever heard of small claims court? If a photographer 'left the lens on his cap' during a once in a lifetime event, I'd think the couple would at least get their money back and then a bit more, apparently you think every lawsuit is about tens of thousands of dollars.

LMAO good luck collecting your small claims court pittance if you win after I declare bankruptcy of the business and re-open under a new LLC. You haven't had much experience at this have you.

What a way to go through life.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mathew 7:1-3

"7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

To today's Kristian: "Yeah but that was then, not now. God says things all the time that he really didn't mean. He isn't saying what he is saying, he's saying something else. Anyone can see that. What he is really saying is "judge all that come before you, for I have transferred my authority to you and imbued you with godly powers. Be not concerned with your brother, he is less than you simply if you declare it, or believe it. Do not do good to others for they deserve your wrath for making you uncomfortable. Be not swayed by what my son said about "loving your neighbor" or "what you do to the least of these my brothers you do also to me". Go out into all the world and proclaim your godly judgement on all my creation. Do not bake cakes or other godly tasks for anyone that offends thee, even if you are all my children. Some children are created more equal than the others. Gather ye all manner of stones and be the perfect follower that casts the first one."

And stand before the judge of the universe as I look into the book of life, and pronounce judgement on ye as ye have judged your brothers and sisters. All that stuff in that book, I meant it. I wasn't writing an entry in my diary, to be read as if you bought it for two bucks at a yard sale one day.

LOL while you are quoting the Bible you may want to read up on why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra.

Fucking Angels.

Hahahaha. Mummmm ha.

Many states have passed anti-homosexual discrimination laws.

There is no constitutional basis for overturning such laws enacted by the various states.

IMO, it should be added to the federal civil rights laws too.

why?

because!

because you say so? funny shit. It's what all of this loopy ideology shit has been about for 20 years now. fk you and the bus you came in on.

No, because, in my opinion........Plus, it is the correct answer to your question.

You'd fuck a bus? Pervert.

 

[Seawytch]

Mathew 7:1-3

"7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

To today's Kristian: "Yeah but that was then, not now. God says things all the time that he really didn't mean. He isn't saying what he is saying, he's saying something else. Anyone can see that. What he is really saying is "judge all that come before you, for I have transferred my authority to you and imbued you with godly powers. Be not concerned with your brother, he is less than you simply if you declare it, or believe it. Do not do good to others for they deserve your wrath for making you uncomfortable. Be not swayed by what my son said about "loving your neighbor" or "what you do to the least of these my brothers you do also to me". Go out into all the world and proclaim your godly judgement on all my creation. Do not bake cakes or other godly tasks for anyone that offends thee, even if you are all my children. Some children are created more equal than the others. Gather ye all manner of stones and be the perfect follower that casts the first one."

And stand before the judge of the universe as I look into the book of life, and pronounce judgement on ye as ye have judged your brothers and sisters. All that stuff in that book, I meant it. I wasn't writing an entry in my diary, to be read as if you bought it for two bucks at a yard sale one day.

LOL while you are quoting the Bible you may want to read up on why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra.

I have...it was inhospitality.


Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

 

[Seawytch]

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

 

[TNHarley]

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

That didn't have anything to do with the "bible"

 

[ding]

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They can discriminate against whatever they want - they just can't advertise that they're doing it. They can't tell people "We won't shoot your wedding because you're gay" - but there's nothing preventing from them just saying "Sorry, we can't do it.".

They can try that, but if the people discriminated against press the issue, at some point the business will have to say why.

No, they won't. Businesses are under no obligation to explain why they're refusing service.

So if the bakers had kept their mouths shut and just said "sorry," the case would not be before the Supreme Court?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

But that's the thing - these people don't just want to refuse service - in fact, I don't think that's even the main point. They want to do it loudly and publicly.

They want to advertise to the world that they won't serve gay people.

The thing is that that is sorta hard to do if they have already accepted and then later found out it was a gig at a gay wedding.

Here's a scenario... guy calls in and says I'd like to talk to you about some work. They come to terms. And later he finds out its a gig at a gay wedding. He's going to have to tell them something.

 

[ding]

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

That would have been the racist heritage of the Democratic Party, right?

The issue with people who prefer having sex with the same gender is that they want it to be accepted as normal when its not. Other than that, do anything you want.

 

[ding]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

Read what he said..

You do not have the unlimited right to refuse service.

Let's say you are a Holocaust survivor who owns a deli and a skinhead comes in. And let's say that you don't want to serve him. Do you serve him because your government has a law that requires you to serve him or do refuse service to him despite the consequences to yourself. And here's the important part, at what point are you happy that your government is forcing their morals upon you?

 

[Seawytch]

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

There were people arguing against desegregation on religious terms? Where in the Bible is THAT okay?
I think this is a little different. I don't agree with them, but they need time to catch up. Dang, when I was born, homosexuality was a fucking crime. When I was in high school, a teacher found to be homosexual would be fired on the spot, because everyone KNEW that homosexuals were all pedophiles. Mostly, it was not talked about. At all.
Now they can legally get married. 40-odd years later. I think it's great. It happened really, really, fast though.

Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[7]

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

That didn't have anything to do with the "bible"

Yes it did. The bible justifies racism and segregation to those who want it to just like it justifies homophobia to those who look for it.

The good Christians at Piggy Park didn't want to serve blacks because the bible told them so.

 

[Seawytch]

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

That would have been the racist heritage of the Democratic Party, right?

The issue with people who prefer having sex with the same gender is that they want it to be accepted as normal when its not. Other than that, do anything you want.

Yes, it was primarily southern, white, Christian Dixicrats...until the Civil Rights Act was passed and signed by a Democratic President. Party affiliation changed at that point. It stayed Southern, white Christians primarily....they just weren't Democrats anymore.