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

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

JasperL said:
Really? So if I reserve a room at a hotel in Gatlinburg, show up with my wife and kids to check in and am told, "sorry we don't rent to niggers/fags/Jews" that's not dehumanizing?

And all we're asking of that hotel owner is to treat blacks etc. the same as all the other customers who walk in the door. Doesn't seem very dehumanizing to me, actually, or a particularly onerous demand on his labor and property - perform the same amount of labor for that black couple as the white couples before and after, and get paid an identical amount for those services.

I guess I can accept that we have some "right" to our labor and property, but like all our other rights it's NOT absolute, which you recognize, and can be abridged to serve the public interest, and having a society in which we can all fully participate without regard to arbitrary characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, gender seems a worthy goal, and a sufficient basis for abridging my right to discriminate on that basis.

These things seem worthy goals to me as well. Like many other things in society, making laws to enforce these things is a bad idea. The law itself IS arbitrary. There is an arbitrary list of groups with special protections. Others not on the list do not have the same protections and are thus discriminated against.

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

Absentglare said:
It's not the beliefs i'm intolerant of, it's the behaviors that harm American citizens.

The behavior of not doing something?

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

CLAX1911 said:
Well it was never about the cake and I never said it was so good for you for missing the point.

You'll have to explain this new group now they came into being and what they are and why they have been the last couple of Millennia of human evolution and how there's been institutionalized discrimination.

Well, at that point it would be settled law, so I guess they'd just have to deal with it. There's no need to tolerate people with silly ideas anyway.

JasperL · Sep 23, 2017

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

CLAX1911 said:
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

It's just that I've spent years around my brother and the gay community in San Diego and I've heard dozens of stories of incredibly blatant discrimination against homosexuals. It's a big reason why many of them moved from little towns all over the west and midwest to San Diego and other large cities, to find a place where they do NOT face discrimination in nearly all walks of life. It's far different now than 25 years ago, leaps forward really, but I find it amazing someone can be part of the gay community and pretend to believe discrimination against LGBT was not common as dirt just a few years ago, and still happens today. I'm not trying to be insulting - just literally amazed....

JasperL · Sep 23, 2017

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

CLAX1911 said:
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.

I wasn't trivializing it - just the opposite in fact.

Verax · Sep 23, 2017

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

It's 2017 and we're still fighting over whether discrimination should be legal.

/facepalm

JasperL · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
These things seem worthy goals to me as well. Like many other things in society, making laws to enforce these things is a bad idea. The law itself IS arbitrary. There is an arbitrary list of groups with special protections. Others not on the list do not have the same protections and are thus discriminated against.

It's not an arbitrary list - race, gender, religion, national origin, and in some places sexual orientation. What would you add? And who isn't protected and is "thus" discriminated against? I'm a white, male, straight, Christian and I enjoy the same protections as a gay, black Jewish woman.

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

CLAX1911 said:
Yeah I don't get it either how libertarian equals authoritarian those two words are opposite.

Sort of like the authoritarian "liberal" democrat...

Then again, I "hate gays". Do I have to bake you a cake?

volsrock · Sep 23, 2017

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

Ikari said:
Not sure it would, Neo-Nazis are not a protected class. Fundamentally, yes it should force them to because it's the same thing. But this is a very carefully scripted, and maintained one-way road.

Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

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

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

They are, actually.

volsrock · Sep 23, 2017

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

Ikari said:
Not sure it would, Neo-Nazis are not a protected class..

Nether are Gays

Court: Discrimination Against Gay Workers Not Prohibited

ATLANTA (AP) — In a setback for gay rights advocates hoping for an expansion of workplace discrimination protections, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled that employers aren't prohibited from discriminating against employees because of sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled 2-1 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on a variety of factors, doesn't protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rimination-against-gay-workers-not-prohibited

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

vegas giants said:
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.

He doesn't typically make cakes celebrating gay marriage, because he doesn't believe such a thing exists. If a gay man married a gay woman, I expect he'd celebrate right along with them.

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

JasperL said:
It's not an arbitrary list - race, gender, religion, national origin, and in some places sexual orientation. What would you add? And who isn't protected and is "thus" discriminated against? I'm a white, male, straight, Christian and I enjoy the same protections as a gay, black Jewish woman.

There is a list. Some people are on it. Others are not. It is arbitrary and subject to change at any time.

AGENT J · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

They are, actually.

Nope there factually are not
Nothing in the link shows anybody being FORCED to do anything, it actually supports that fact that nobody is being "forced" to serve fays LMAO this isnt rocket science, try again.

AGENT J · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
There is a list. Some people are on it. Others are not. It is arbitrary and subject to change at any time.

Also factually wrong, every single person in this country is in one or more protected classes.

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

AGENT J said:
Nope there factually are not
Nothing in the link shows anybody being FORCED to do anything, it actually supports that fact that nobody is being "forced" to serve fays LMAO this isnt rocket science, try again.

If I pointed a gun at someone and said "walk away or I shoot", I haven't technically forced them to do anything, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that. You're right. It's not rocket science.

Hawkeye10 · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
If I pointed a gun at someone and said "walk away or I shoot", I haven't technically forced them to do anything, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that. You're right. It's not rocket science.

Sure looks like taking away another persons will to me.

Trying to at least.

You own it.

FederalRepublic · Sep 23, 2017

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

AGENT J said:
Also factually wrong, every single person in this country is in one or more protected classes.

Also disingenuous. Being in a protected class does not prevent you from being discriminated against.

AGENT J · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
Also disingenuous.
2.)Being in a protected class does not prevent you from being discriminated against.

1.) nope what I "actually" said is 100% fact. disagree prove it wrong, you cant.
2.) good thing i didnt say that in anyway shape of form LMAO Seem you like to make alot of things up.

AGENT J · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
If I pointed a gun at someone and said "walk away or I shoot", I haven't technically forced them to do anything, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that. You're right. It's not rocket science.

Please explain what your scenario has to do with anything here? oh thats right it factually doesnt in anyway shape of form. Seems facts keep proving you wrong and there factually is no force. if there was you could prove it but you cant. All you do is keep trying to convince us your FEELINGS are true but they are not. So here we are, you with a false claim and ZERO facts to support it LMAO. Please let us know when you can and provide ONE fact that makes your claim true. Thanks

Serenity · Sep 23, 2017

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

FederalRepublic said:
Then again, I "hate gays". Do I have to bake you a cake?

If someone is an adulterer will you will bake them a cake?
If someone is a murderer will you bake them a cake?
If someone is a thief will you bake them a cake?
If someone has idols will you bake them a cake?
If someone doesn't keep the sabbath day holy will you bake them a cake?
If someone takes the name of the Lord your God in vain will you bake them a cake?
If someone doesn't Honor their father and their mother will you bake them a cake?

If someone is gay and wishing to get married will you bake them a cake?

Sorry folks. You can't have your gay and eat it too.

braindrain · Sep 23, 2017

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

cuban smokes said:
but then who would think folks from a neo-Nazi wedding would desire to hire a black videographer?

prolly only someone with a brain the size of a micron, or less; maybe even only an angstrom, or two .......... :lol: .........

But then who would think a same sex couple would hire a videographer who didnt believe in same sex marriage

prolly only someone with a brain the size of a micron, or less; maybe even only an angstrom, or two .......... lol.

AGENT J · Sep 23, 2017

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

braindrain said:
But then who would think a same sex couple would hire a videographer who didnt believe in same sex marriage

prolly only someone with a brain the size of a micron, or less; maybe even only an angstrom, or two .......... lol.

guessed you missed the obviously glaring point that a neo nazi would KNOW the black guy is black (yes there are a few where its hard to tell)
A gay couple doesnt know some bigot is going to discriminate again them until it happens and then its not a matter of them wanting that person to do the job its a matter of them reporting a crime and or defending their rights.
oooooops LMAO:lamo

iguanaman · Sep 23, 2017

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

ludin said:
This is where you are wrong. they are not discriminating against the people they are simply not celebrating their event.
No business can be forced to do an event. if you think they do then i hope you are willing to say that black people have to do KKK meetings.
that they have no choice in the matter.

I say that black people could refuse to do a KKK meeting. they could not be forced to do that event. I see no difference between the two of them.

I could careless what the hack organization has to say.

you failed to answer my question though. religious bigotry is bigotry so why do you do it?
They have a right and a constitutional right to practice what they believe and the government has 0 right to interfere with that.

I would say that includes into their business as well, However we will see what happens when it comes to this
when the SCOTUS hears the baker case and gives their ruling.

yet those rights can't be infringed on by the government yet they are.
forcing someone to partake in something that disagree's with their religious beliefs not only violates the free speech government and freedom of religion.

i see a similar ruling to HL.

in fact the hobby lobby case would have a huge impact on this case as well as they ruled basically then as well
that family and small owner businesses cannot have their religious beliefs violated.

When you run a public business you are not allowed to discriminate against those that do not have you beliefs. That is religious discrimination. HL was about insurance not about selling. The whole idea that selling a cake to a gay couple is against anybodies religion is a fallacy to facilitate discrimination and ostracization and nothing more. The courts will see thru that the same way they saw thru the claim that any religion says the races should be kept separate and desegregation was "against their religion". Do you also believe it is a religious right to refuse to serve blacks....or Mexicans or ......Is that what you think religion is for? To facilitate bigotry? The fact that you don't see the difference between a hate group like the KKK and a gay couple is quite troubling to say the least.

AGENT J · Sep 23, 2017

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

ludin said:
1.) This is where you are wrong.
2.) they are not discriminating against the people they are simply not celebrating their event.
3.) No business can be forced to do an event.
4.) if you think they do then i hope you are willing to say that black people have to do KKK meetings.
that they have no choice in the matter.
5.) I say that black people could refuse to do a KKK meeting.
6.) they could not be forced to do that event.
7.) I see no difference between the two of them.
8.) religious bigotry is bigotry so why do you do it?
9.) They have a right and a constitutional right to practice what they believe and the government has 0 right to interfere with that.
10.) I would say that includes into their business as well, However we will see what happens when it comes to this
when the SCOTUS hears the baker case and gives their ruling.
11.) yet those rights can't be infringed on by the government yet they are.
forcing someone to partake in something that disagree's with their religious beliefs not only violates the free speech government and freedom of religion.
12.)i see a similar ruling to HL.

in fact the hobby lobby case would have a huge impact on this case as well as they ruled basically then as well
that family and small owner businesses cannot have their religious beliefs violated.

1.) actually he is 100% correct
2.) this lie now sells to honest, objective and educated people. they are infact discriminating against the people. it is a purely dishonest and retarded claim to say otherwise and it has been proven wrong by many people many times.
3.) go thing no buinsess are being forced then huh
4.) again there is no force so no, black people dont have to do anything with thee KKK
5.) yes the legally can
6.) correct just like these people are FACTUALLY not forced
7.) what you see doesnt matter only facts do and your claims have already been proven wrong
8.) there is no religious bigotry here, that lie has also been proven wrong with facts
9.) factually NOT true but thats meaningless since the government is NOT interfering in what they practice LMAO. WHy post lies like that and make stuff up when they are easily proven wrong?
10.) again what you say doesnt matter to facts
11.) and another factual lie ZERO rights are being infringed on here of the photographers . . ZERO. Disagree list the right and factually prove it, you cant
12.) again you simply see wrong and the cases are not related

please let us know when you can prove theres factual religious bigotry going on here and a factual violation of rights and the government is factually interfering with their practice of religion., thanks!

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

FederalRepublic

FederalRepublic

FederalRepublic

JasperL

JasperL

Verax

Disappointed in Trump

JasperL

FederalRepublic

volsrock

FederalRepublic

volsrock

FederalRepublic

FederalRepublic

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

FederalRepublic

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

FederalRepublic

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Serenity

Stay Human

braindrain

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

iguanaman

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

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

Disappointed in Trump

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Buttermilk Man

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Stay Human

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency