- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
how is a gay wedding an "innate feature that cannot change"? They CHOSE to put on the wedding, so the business owner should be able to CHOOSE whether to cater it or not.
I agree they should not refuse to serve a gay person, but this situation has nothing to do with that.
how is a gay wedding an "innate feature that cannot change"? They CHOSE to put on the wedding, so the business owner should be able to CHOOSE whether to cater it or not.
I agree they should not refuse to serve a gay person, but this situation has nothing to do with that.
Just as interracial couples, interfaith couples, and even couples of other faiths choose to get married. So if they too are denied catering to their wedding, then the same thing would apply.
how is a gay wedding an "innate feature that cannot change"? They CHOSE to put on the wedding, so the business owner should be able to CHOOSE whether to cater it or not.
I agree they should not refuse to serve a gay person, but this situation has nothing to do with that.
again, I go back to the main argument the gay marriage used during this entire issue: how will gay people getting married effect you? they assumed the response would be crickets. well, we now see the effect. people losing their businesses and being threatened with harm. and it's bound to happen again and again.
again, I go back to the main argument the gay marriage used during this entire issue: how will gay people getting married effect you? they assumed the response would be crickets. well, we now see the effect. people losing their businesses and being threatened with harm. and it's bound to happen again and again.
They're not losing their jobs because of SSM. They're losing their jobs due to their bigotry
This entire discussion is entirely on the question, "should people of faith gain exceptions to laws that apply to everyone else if it violates a deeply held religious belief"? (At least the intelligent discussions)
If the answer is no then we have no rights. If the answer is yes, then we have anarchy. And if the answer is sometimes, then we need some sort of test. Rights can trump laws, but rights don't always trump laws. Free speech doesn't legalize libel.
So someone can say that their religion is anything they want. But that doesn't give them the right to exercise that religion.
And they still did not have the right to deny selling them a wedding cake.
so if an old jewish couple with a deli in brooklyn refuses to cater a gay marriage on religious grounds, you would walk/stride in, call them bigots, then sign a petition to have the store closed. and you would be proud of yourself(ohhhh so proud)
We already have a test. Its called demonstrable harm. Which is why libel laws trump our Right to free speech. It causes harm. It is also why people cannot sacrifice someone due to religious convictions. It causes demonstrable harm.
So lets take what's going on as an example. For now lets take out what is being served. IE the material object. Because this isn't so much about the material object as it is about whether our right to freedom of association is trumped by law. Currently we have several types of businesses that have stated that due to their religious beliefs they will not provide service and/or products to SSM. However they WILL provide service and/or products to gay couples for any other reason. This demonstrates that they are not discriminating against sexual orientation. Yes or no?
Now, where is the demonstrable harm caused to gay couples for a bakery to refuse them service based on an act that that particular bakery is against but will otherwise serve them and provide their products for anything and everything else?
Yes they do. The fact that the government is denying them that right is no different then when our government also denied people their right to be free. IE: It is an invalid use of government force in both instances.
There is no legal right to discriminate! And there is also no moral right to do so.
The fact that these moron bakers think they have a religious right to discriminate is bull crap, un-Christian, evil, immoral and illegal. And not allowing public accommodations to discriminate is nothing like governments denying people the right to be free, the only thing this law prevents is asswipe bakers from discriminate and that is just great, no invalid use of government force but a government who enforces the civil rights of everybody in America to not discriminated against for their color, gender, age or religion.
A wedding cake is not a religious expression of faith, it is a party cake for 2 people who have joined in a lasting partnership and just because there are haters who want to deny gays the happiness of marriage is bad enough, but to deny them a cake when they are participating in a legally allowed practice of marriage is nothing short but petty and disgusting of these bakers.
If there is a heaven they will be judged for their crimes against their fellow man just like they are here on earth, it is not their place to judge last time I checked and it is not their place to decide who is allowed to marry or not, that is the people, not the Christian Taliban of America.
Quite an emotional post there.
Show me where any of these Christian bakeries decided whether a gay couple can or cannot get married.
Oh right, they didn't. They refused their service because they did not want to condone nor participate in any way shape or form to something that they believe is wrong.
It's discrimination. It's like laying a tax on yarmulkes. You can say you're not targeting a specific group, but no one is fooled.
The demonstrable harm is the harm to commerce that discrimination creates.
And there is the rub and what you are ignoring. There doesn't have to be a demonstrable harm to an individual (though in these cases there is) in order to justify a law; demonstrable harm to a legitimate govt interest is sufficient.
1: I have never said it wasn't discrimination. You can stop saying it as if I have said that its not.
2: Everyone discriminates in some way shape or form every single day.
3: You do not have the Right to determine that someone is lying without any proof. And you have none. One of these businesses that has been discussed has been serving and providing products to the gay couple that sued them for years. That is evidence that they did not lie or tried to "fool" anyone. Or do you believe that two fe/males cannot legally get married?
You have already been shown how you are wrong on this by me and others. Just because you keep parroting it doesn't make it true or applicable to what we are discussing. I'll not be taking a ride on the merry go round thank you.
the plumber who fixed my toilet last night did not condone or participate in the crap I took this morning.
1) You asked if it was discrimination, and I answered so stop whining because you didn't get the answer you wanted
2) And sometimes, it's illegal
3) The govt has the constitutional power to regulate commerce, and the law says there's no difference.
The plumber did not work on anything that is symbolic or can be tied to religion.
1) My toilet is very symbolic. It's called "the throne" for a good reason
2) It doesn't matter. Selling a product is not condoning or participating in its' use after it's sold
1: No I didn't. Re-read what I said. Use basic reading comprehension.
2: Laws that discriminate are not valid laws.
3: Commerce has nothing to do with this no matter how much you try to make it so.
Depends on the product. Whether you want to admit this or not is irrelevant.
1) You asked "This demonstrates that they are not discriminating against sexual orientation. Yes or no?" and my answer is that it is.
2) Wrong. Plenty of law discriminate. Murder laws discriminate between those who kill for valid reasons and those who do not
3) Yeah, who a business does and does not have to sell to has nothing to do with commerce!! :lamo
Yes, I am proud to be opposed to bigotry
Quote Originally Posted by sangha
Some people hate the niggers more than they distrust the govt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?