Started By
Message
re: Catholic couple fined $13,000 for refusing to host same-sex ‘wedding’
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:48 pm to auggie
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:48 pm to auggie
quote:
Are you going to call the feds?
Are you going to pay taxes on the cattle when you sell them? Are you going to keep up with the trichomoniasis regulations? Or since it's on your property(as if people have never raised cattle on their own property) suddenly private property laws and "I can do whatever I want" attitude takes over.
But yes. If you were trying to sell your cattle, and engage in commerce, and they weren't up to date with their trich tests, yes I would definitely call the authorities.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:49 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Lemme guess, you would also support government forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies?
If they offer the service to the public for a fee, damn right. But they don't, so no.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:49 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Why is one class of people being discriminated against different than another?
If it's a fake protected class, then they're different.
If the state of Missouri makes gingers a protected class, does that make them "equal" to blacks in a discriminated class?
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:50 pm to Kentucker
quote:
If they offer the service to the public for a fee, damn right. But they don't, so no.
Many churches charge people to use their church for weddings, so you're now in favor of forcing those churches to marry the gays, I guess.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
If it's a fake protected class, then they're different.
Gays are a real, not fake, protected class in New York. Does that knowledge change your answer?
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:52 pm to Kentucker
quote:
If they offer the service to the public for a fee, damn right. But they don't, so no.
I know you're fiercely anti religion, but COME ON SON, do you even, Constitution brah?
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
Many churches charge people to use their church for weddings, so you're now in favor of forcing those churches to marry the gays, I guess.
Are they charging or asking for a donation? Does the church operate a wedding business? Is the church in a state where gays can legally marry?
So many questions. So little time.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:54 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
I've also stated that the law is stupid because the property owners should have the right to refuse service if said service conflicts with their personal and constitutionally protected religious beliefs.
And I asked you if their religious beliefs were circa early 1900s Christianity, and they didn't believe in a black man marrying a white woman was God's will, would the law still be stupid? You've refused to answer that question.
quote:
You're the one who kept bringing up civil rights violations against blacks that occurred 50 years ago.
Because you refused to answer the question above.
quote:
Lemme guess, you would also support government forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies?
No. That doesn't make sense. Why would I force a religious institution to do anything? Because you believe that this farm owner's freedom of religion is being violated? I will then refer you to a different version of the above question you've refused to answer. If they didn't believe in interracial marriage due to religious reasons, and a black and white couple wanted to rent their property, would it be violating their freedom of religion?
We are talking about a commercial enterprise here. Do you really not see the difference? The government doesn't have the right to break in to your house and take 10% of what is out of your wallet. If you try and engage in commerce on your private property, they have the right to make sure your shite it up to code, that you aren't violating any health regulations, and that you pay income taxes. Private property rights are not the issue here, regardless of how many times you claim they are. This is commerce.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:55 pm to Kentucker
Charging.
I'm sure that some do this in states where gays can marry.
By the definitions in this thread, they are "operating a wedding business."
I'm sure that some do this in states where gays can marry.
By the definitions in this thread, they are "operating a wedding business."
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:57 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Why do right-wingers make generalizations? There, back at you.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:57 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Gays are a real, not fake, protected class in New York. Does that knowledge change your answer?
There used to be legal standards to determine what constituted a protected class. Now it is whatever is popular to be a protected class. If I get legislation passed that declares trout a protected class they would legally be a protected class. They wouldn't deserve being a protected class. But they would be a protected class cuz the law says so.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:57 pm to Kentucker
quote:
They violated New York law by denying the lesbian couple the use of their farm, as they happily do for straight couples.
This is the part I don't get. So what? If they had denied a ceremony to an exceptionally fat and/or ugly couple because it would be bad for business, would anybody care? Or forget any reasons given at all - why can't a business owner just say, "No, we don't want your business"? It's not like the lesbian couple couldn't be married somewhere else.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:58 pm to the808bass
quote:
If it's a fake protected class, then they're different.
If the state of Missouri makes gingers a protected class, does that make them "equal" to blacks in a discriminated class?
So that's the root of your belief. You should have just said you hate gays and don't believe they can be discriminated against.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:59 pm to the808bass
Do they take parties off the street or are the couples church members?
This thread can not determine who is or is not operating a business. Only governments can do that.
This thread can not determine who is or is not operating a business. Only governments can do that.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 6:59 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
That doesn't make sense. Why would I force a religious institution to do anything?
Kentucker has already painted himself into this corner. Kudos on sidestepping your own logic.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 7:00 pm to Kentucker
He asked if I would be using my land for commercial purposes, so I answered him, and told him what the business would be.
Obviously, he feels that what I do there is his concern.So I described what would be going on there.
Obviously, he feels that what I do there is his concern.So I described what would be going on there.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 7:00 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
This is the part I don't get. So what? If they had denied a ceremony to an exceptionally fat and/or ugly couple because it would be bad for business, would anybody care? Or forget any reasons given at all - why can't a business owner just say, "No, we don't want your business"? It's not like the lesbian couple couldn't be married somewhere else.
The fact that the gay couple recorded the conversation that they were told they couldn't get married by the owners, and the "staff" now has to take sensitivity training, leads me to believe the couple had an idea it was coming which means they thought they were going to get it no problems, then the owners that weren't dealing with the patrons found out they were gay and told the employees to end it.
Yes though. They should have lied and found a different reason to cancel it.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 7:03 pm to auggie
quote:
Obviously, he feels that what I do there is his concern.
If you're going to infect all the cattle in your region with trichomoniasis because you believe that everything that happens on your private property is beyond the scope of regulation even when you are engaging in commerce, then yes. I think it is my concern if you live in my community, absolutely.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 7:03 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
quote: If it's a fake protected class, then they're different. If the state of Missouri makes gingers a protected class, does that make them "equal" to blacks in a discriminated class? So that's the root of your belief. You should have just said you hate gays and don't believe they can be discriminated against.
You're bad at arguing and good at selective quoting. By what basis were blacks declared to be a protected class? Any idea?
quote:
First, the Civil Rights Act acknowledges that protected classes have in common a history of discrimination by the majority white population. It also states that protected classes have certain "inmutable" characteristics. That is, they have characteristics -- such as color, ethnicity or gender -- that they cannot change.
And that's why the full court propaganda press has been on to say that homosexuality is genetic. So that it is a legitimate protected class. It's not, of course.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 7:04 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
This is the part I don't get. So what? If they had denied a ceremony to an exceptionally fat and/or ugly couple because it would be bad for business, would anybody care? Or forget any reasons given at all - why can't a business owner just say, "No, we don't want your business"? It's not like the lesbian couple couldn't be married somewhere else.
Wonderful question, and so timely. Any business owner can refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Dumbfounded? Yes, they can refuse service to any individual (or individual couple in the thread's example). HOWEVER, and it's a giant however, they cannot refuse service to a class of people.
Does that compute?
This post was edited on 11/11/14 at 7:06 pm
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/SR_Icon.jpg)