Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge say

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

And the black person can find another diner to eat in?

Was the diner being asked to cater and participate in some function to which they have high moral objections or just offering a product to everyone? I'm sure the videographers would sell them videos of nature or concerts or other events they have produced. It is the demanding they participate and use their artistic talents to produce something in celebration of something to which they have a moral objection the problem arises.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Goodness, you must be young or something. My brother is gay and he's got several heartbreaking stories about hospitals and gay partners.

Yeah I've read them too. I am 35. Didn't meet my partner until I was 27. Prior to Oberfell my partner and I tried to get a joint adoption of his little brother. His parents disowned him when he was 18 for being gay. And they later disowned his youngest brother at 12 years old for being gay. They are a Mormon family. So I'm privy to the nasty things people do to gay people. Thank you for trivializing it.

The problem is before SSM was legalized,

Well The Oberfell decision happened so marriage is fully recognized.

gay partners had no legal status unless they'd signed medical POAs or something equivalent. They had the same legal status as a roommate or drinking buddy.

Duh. [QUOTEPAnd even they had signed the necessary papers, if challenged by "real" family, like bitter parents, hospitals were reluctant to give the gay partner access and the partner of 25 years sure as hell often could not make any decisions, or had to threaten lawsuits, etc. to make it happen.[/QUOTE]In the past. Now after the Oberfell decision that is over.

Sadly, too, many partners hadn't signed the papers because like the rest of us they just didn't anticipate the need and didn't get around to it. No big deal for married straight couples, but for gay couples unable to marry, but who put off the medical POA until too late, it was sometimes tragic.

I wasn't arguing that there never was discrimination. Why do people with the apologetic argument always have to dwell in the past?

[QUOTEPSo it wasn't that laws forbade visits, it's just that there was often no legal standing on which to demand access. Most of my brother's stories involved a dying partner and parents who had never accepted the son being gay, hated his gay partner, and took it out on that person out of spite. Admittedly, it put hospital administrators in a tough position, but that's the problem. If my wife is ill, the presumption is I am the healthcare decision maker, period. That presumption did not exist with gay couples, even people who'd spent decades together.[/QUOTE]It does now.

Here's an article that is somewhat similar to stories my brother and his friends have told me over the years.

No thanks I've read enough of those. That's why the supreme court ruled the way it did.

Thankfully, things are completely different in 2017 than in 1997.

I was but a 15 year old boy stuck in compete denial in 1997.

I came out in 2007.

 

[OlNate]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

First this is NOT an essential service. This is a gay couple asking someone to use their talents to participate in and function to which they have deep moral objections. It is like asking a black composer to compose a song with lyrics celebrating black slavery and wishing a return to it. Recall the black wedding cake bakery. He had sold to the gay couple before, items not custom made or designed but cakes or other goods merely on sale. It was when he was asked to use his artistic talents to create a special cake celebration something to which he had high moral objections it became an issue. No one should be able to force someone to violate such high moral convictions.

Good grief. It's baking a cake, not entering into a threesome. And your slavery reference couldn't be more over the top. What, had the baker's ancestors been subjected to a couple hundred years of forced homosexuality and show tunes? And please, point to the chapter and verse where God says "Thou shalt not provide ceremonial dessert to the pillow biters". Rhetoric like this has a lot more to do with why people don't take us seriously than any dreamed up attack on our religious freedoms. High moral convictions...you do not want to go down that road, man, seriously. You want to lose a debate about our faith, you lead out with the words "high moral convictions".

 

[trouble13]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

it's only discrimination if you are fired for being gay. States may not view that as necessary to protect because it may not be a problem.

that isn't systematic discrimination that's simply no law preventing someone from discriminating.

So how is the lack of a law protecting homosexuals for being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation discrimination?

I wanna try a little mental excerise

Your a gay business owner and you hired a young heterosexual man who hits on your females customers to the point of making them uncomfortable. Is it OK to fire this person or are you violating his civil rights by doing so?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

If I were fired for being gay that would be discrimination. I don't see that happening. I bet you could find an instance here or there. But it seems pretty isolated.

That sounds like you're saying that since it hasn't happened to you, it doesn't exist.

Do you see the problem with that?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Well I've been playing the long con. Since a couple years before you ever signed up. All as a ploy to use it in this conversation.

Because gay people have to think how they are told to think. They must see discrimination all around them because that is what their democrat masters told them to think.

I signed up back in November 2012. I somehow saw 5 years into the future when this conversion would happen and introduced myself as a homosexual.

Man I'm amazing.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/come-in-and-say-hi/142551-am-political-contradiction.html

Ah, so your logic is that since a democrat said it, it must be false.

Here, i'm a liberal democrat and i think the world is round. Do you think i'm wrong because i'm just repeating what the "democratic masters" told me? I hear they're all the professors and journalists and they're involved in a global conspiracy that only right wingers have heard of.

Or you can give a legitimate (non-spite based) explanation for your view.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Yeah I've read them too. I am 35. Didn't meet my partner until I was 27. Prior to Oberfell my partner and I tried to get a joint adoption of his little brother. His parents disowned him when he was 18 for being gay. And they later disowned his youngest brother at 12 years old for being gay. They are a Mormon family. So I'm privy to the nasty things people do to gay people. Thank you for trivializing it.

The irony of the last sentence cannot be overstated.

In the past. Now after the Oberfell decision that is over.

I wasn't arguing that there never was discrimination. Why do people with the apologetic argument always have to dwell in the past?

It does now.

It does what? What the hell are you talking about?

Do you have any concept of gay rights in the US of 2017?

No thanks I've read enough of those. That's why the supreme court ruled the way it did.

I was but a 15 year old boy stuck in compete denial in 1997.

I came out in 2007.

Gay rights continue to be important as long as there are gays. The suggestion of being too cowardly to appreciate the history is offensive.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

People choose to be Nazis; they don't choose to be gay.

Should you be forced to serve them?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Neo nazis would never hire a black videographer. Straw men suck too!

If they could get the government to force them to, they might, just to stick it to the black guy.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Yes, it is. It is always a harmful act.

Not only are you incorrect, you have it almost 100% backwards. Being indiscriminate is almost always harmful.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

That's an extremely authoritarian view that pays no respect to the freedoms of the individuals who are harmed by prejudice.

:shock: It's authoritarian to say that individuals have the right to a make decisions? :shock:

Would it be authoritarian of me to choose to marry a white woman instead of a black man?

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

:shock: It's authoritarian to say that individuals have the right to a make decisions? :shock:

Would it be authoritarian of me to choose to marry a white woman instead of a black man?

Yeah I don't get it either how libertarian equals authoritarian those two words are opposite.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-ban:homepage/story



I agree with the Judges decision, and I am sure some will not.
Not sure on this, but most if not all countries that have SS would not tolerate this discrimination.

Of course the judge was right.
These people want special rights and want to be above the law based on their feelings which they claim to be their religious beliefs. Well religious freedom doesn't work like that, it doesn't give you special rights or make you free to break the law or violate the rights of others.

Theres many simple solutions to their problems.
Dont be a photographer
Dont be a photographer with a public access business.
Be a photographer but dont do ANY weddings
Be a photographer but private
be a photographer with a public access business and dont break the law and illegally discriminate.

:shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.)This ruling can force a black videographer to attend a neo-nazi wedding.
2.) Slippery slopes suck, huh?

1.) Since the original law factually doesnt force anybody to do anything neither will this ruling LMAO
2.) nope but i bet having your lies destroyed or topical ignorance exposed does.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Not unless they make nazis a protected class. The question we should be debating is if homosexuals should be a protected class of people.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

homosexuals, like blacks and Christians will NEVER be a protected class . .

but sexual orientation is most places and race and religion is. We are all as individuals protected classes but discrimination must come in that form, not randomly.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Depends on how you mean that. If you're suggesting these laws would force people to marry against their will that is nonsensical. You cannot choose who you fall in love with. That is precisely why it is idiotic to be against gay marriage in the first place.

You may not be able to choose who you fall in love with, but you certainly choose who you marry, unless you're in a forced marriage (which is sort of similar to forcing people to associate with others against their will).

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

They are not forced against their will. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, serving the public is what you're signing up for when you choose to open a public business.

People open a business for the same reason that people get up and go to work for someone else--to make a living. Business owners are private citizens, not public doormats.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.)Do we, or do we not have religious freedom in this country?
2.) This is an idiotic decision, and in no way connected to reality.
3.) This judge should be impeached, and removed from the bench.
4.) Do libs really think decisions like this are going to help them retake any political power any time soon? Wow.

1.) of course and their religious freedom isnt harmed in anyway nor does religious freedom give anybody SPECIAL rights to break the law and or violate the rights of others
2.) many many many courts cases, facts and precedence purveyor "feelings" wrong
3.) LMAO theres zero bases to do so, zero. More meaningless feelings and no facts to support your claims.
4.) I wonder how many times you mention libs in your posts and most posters right, left and center quickly sees the hack, dishonest and biased nature of it? You realize MILLIONS of conservatives/righties support equal rights right?:lol:

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Not to mention the fact that religious freedom is enshrined in our constitution. If people don't like religious freedom, they should work to ban it. I propose Democrats start a massive push to ban religious freedom, especially ahead of the midterms.

Religious freedom wasnt violated here at all. If you disagree simple point out what factual religious freedom was violated? please do so now, thanks

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Unconstitutional

Unfair = Unconstitutional?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Should you be forced to serve them?

Nobody is being "forced" to serve gays :shrug: That lie always fails.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

I don't feel like word games right now

So explain yourself, because you don't make sense.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Unfair = Unconstitutional?

No. Unconstitutional equals unconstitutional

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

The gay cake thing is exactly the same. There's no reason for them to refuse to bake a cake if they sell cakes.

Maybe someone says it's against their religion to sleep in a bed that a homosexual might have had sex in.

If there's a part of the bible in their delusional head that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for homos" then they should get the **** out of the cake baking business. There's no right to run a business in violation of the law.

The part i don't get: you, Ikari, and others keep acting like business owners will be sensible and won't discriminate because it will be bad for their business. That's like saying we might as well not have laws against murder because people aren't going to murder one another, it just doesn't make any ****ing sense.

If some went into a Christian baker's shop and asked them to make a cake with two dicks intertwined on top, would you accuse them of bigotry if they said no? How about a cake with an aborted baby on top? A mocking figure of Jesus? Does the baker have a right to discriminate against any of these?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

If some went into a Christian baker's shop and asked them to make a cake with two dicks intertwined on top, would you accuse them of bigotry if they said no? How about a cake with an aborted baby on top? A mocking figure of Jesus? Does the baker have a right to discriminate against any of these?

If he typically made cakes like that then no.....he can't discriminate. But a baker has to make the exact same cake for gays as he does straights.