Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Mar 20, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Press & Argus

When Vanessa Willock wanted an Albuquerque photographer to shoot her same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, she contacted Elane Photography.

Comments
1,901 - 1,920 of 2,815 Comments Last updated May 12, 2014
Talibangelicals Uber

Philadelphia, PA

#1917 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Men who have sex with men are gay or bisexual.
Wrong, men who have sex with men are on the down low or are homophobic, Republican politicians. People who say they are gay or bi are gay or bi.

The stronger correlations are income, education, race to a certain extent, age to a certain extent.

But you still can't conceive that there is a world beyond your keyboard, say, Africa.

Nor do you similarly defame heterosexuality on the basis of the epidemic raping of women it exhibits.

This is because you merely have some homosexual problem you are not interested in resolving.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1918 Apr 5, 2014
Talibangelicals Uber wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, men who have sex with men are on the down low or are homophobic, Republican politicians. People who say they are gay or bi are gay or bi.
The stronger correlations are income, education, race to a certain extent, age to a certain extent.
But you still can't conceive that there is a world beyond your keyboard, say, Africa.
Nor do you similarly defame heterosexuality on the basis of the epidemic raping of women it exhibits.
This is because you merely have some homosexual problem you are not interested in resolving.
Gays rape men. Africa isn't here where we live. HIV in this country is a gay disease, even someone as dumb as you are knows that.

I would love to resolve it, all that's required is for everyone to mind their own business. Problem solved. Most people, gay or straight, just want to have a good life as they define it, then there's people like you. Old, sick in the head, angry.
Talibangelicals Uber

Philadelphia, PA

#1919 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays rape men. Africa isn't here where we live. HIV in this country is a gay disease
You missed the point on purpose again.

If you wish to defame homosexuality for this or that reason - actually due to your sexual problems - then it should make sense to defame heterosexuality for its far more common maladies.

Such as the endemic raping of women, and the incidence of AIDS...far higher among heterosexuals.

It's your special problem that you blot the entire third world out of your sexually sick ruminations. OTOH, you do live on a different planet, so....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1920 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Eating out isn't banned by the church, gay weddings are.
Having a place to live isn't banned by the church, gay weddings are.
Nor does the church ban a celebration with your friends. But your logic extends just as much to ANY support of same-sex relationships--whether Valentine's dinner or anniversary party--as it does to the wedding. Well, actually, it doesn't because, outside your pea brain, it isn't logic at all.

I'm still waiting for you to quote me the scripture that supports denying service to people who don't share your beliefs.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1921 Apr 5, 2014
Talibangelicals Uber wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the point on purpose again.
I didn't miss any point. I won't accept your nonsense.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1922 Apr 5, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor does the church ban a celebration with your friends. But your logic extends just as much to ANY support of same-sex relationships--whether Valentine's dinner or anniversary party--as it does to the wedding. Well, actually, it doesn't because, outside your pea brain, it isn't logic at all.
I'm still waiting for you to quote me the scripture that supports denying service to people who don't share your beliefs.
My 'logic' is this. A man believes that gay marriage is a sin, he shouldn't be fined or locked up for that. If he thinks baking a cake for a gay wedding or taking photos of a gay wedding violates his religious beliefs and has him participating in a sinful act then that belief is protected by the 1st amendment. Let the justices decide.

If you are waiting for scripture from me you'll be waiting forever.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1923 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
My 'logic' is this. A man believes that gay marriage is a sin, he shouldn't be fined or locked up for that. If he thinks baking a cake for a gay wedding or taking photos of a gay wedding violates his religious beliefs and has him participating in a sinful act then that belief is protected by the 1st amendment. Let the justices decide.
If you are waiting for scripture from me you'll be waiting forever.
He isn't risking punishment because of his dubious prayer choices, he is risking punishment for breaking a law which makes his prayer choices his problem, not his customers. They had a right to service that he violated, he can blame God for it if he wants, but it doesn't excuse breaking the law.
Talibangelicals Uber

Philadelphia, PA

#1924 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't miss any point. I won't accept your nonsense.
Of course you don't accept simple facts. That's why I keep repeating them and calling you name, you stupid, anti rational pos.

AIDS worldwide is overwhelmingly heterosexual.

Given that fact, and the preponderance of violent rape of women by men, you should equally of moreso be defaming heterosexuality...as you only do homosexuality.

But you aren't doing that, so we know you just have a sex disorder regarding homosexuality. And that you have some sort of racist blinders on.
Talibangelicals Uber

Philadelphia, PA

#1925 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
My 'logic' is this. A man believes that gay marriage is a sin, he shouldn't be fined or locked up for that.
Yes he should. Because he's not similarly trying to change laws based on other "sins," such as coveting.

And "he believes" is not a defense against his being a simple bigot. He may well believe or have believed that blacks and whites should not be permitted to marry. That he "believes" so does not mean he is not unfit for educated society.

Indeed, as the high tech community has shown, he is considered unfit for educated society. That is their "belief" about him.

But then you claim, i.e., lie, that you are not motivated by religious beliefs yourself. That could only be true in the sense that you are motivated by a psycho sexual issue around male homosexuality. You stupid filth.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1926 Apr 5, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
My 'logic' is this. A man believes that gay marriage is a sin, he shouldn't be fined or locked up for that. If he thinks baking a cake for a gay wedding or taking photos of a gay wedding violates his religious beliefs and has him participating in a sinful act then that belief is protected by the 1st amendment. Let the justices decide.
If you are waiting for scripture from me you'll be waiting forever.
I know that you don't personally get your prejudices from the Christian Bible. But you fight for the right of people who do to discriminate. And you refuse to answer the question why the same right to discriminate on religious beliefs does not apply to the waiter or the real estate agent or the janitor. If they sincerely believe that gay people are committing a sin and serving them in their chosen vocations violates their religious beliefs, why are they any less important than the bakers'?

The fact is that you can't provide a legal principle that determines legal vs illegal discrimination.

We've had this conversation in America before. And we decided that we don't give every business the right to decide who is and isn't worthy of service. We learned the hard way that it's bad for society.
Talibangelicals Uber

Philadelphia, PA

#1927 Apr 5, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that you don't personally get your prejudices from the Christian Bible.
That is surely where the freeek gets its bigotry from, although we should allow it could be the torah, too. This is true whether the freeek now attends services or considers itself religious or not. That's where the sexual illness originated - people passing on that dogma.

And the bigot has spent a lot of time here in the past braying about "religious" issues. It just finds it convenient to now deny any "religious" motivation, since all the courts have summarily disallowed that sort of "argument" regarding lgbt rights, with the possible exception of freedom of association cases.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#1929 Apr 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Moms and Dads make children, don't blame God.
You aren't one of god's children, as in "Our father who art in heaven?" Too bad for you that you apparently didn't make the cut.. And I never blamed god. You lied.(Or as I like to point out, bore false witness.)
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#1930 Apr 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't miss any point. I won't accept your nonsense.
Then you'll understand why your own nonsense (oh, let just call it bullsh!t) is not accepted.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1931 Apr 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Both the clerk and the baker are participants.
No they aren't.

Is the designer of the tuxedos also a participant in the wedding?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1932 Apr 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
My 'logic' is this. A man believes that gay marriage is a sin, he shouldn't be fined or locked up for that. If he thinks baking a cake for a gay wedding or taking photos of a gay wedding violates his religious beliefs and has him participating in a sinful act then that belief is protected by the 1st amendment. Let the justices decide.
.
They've already decided this, loser. Here's what your buddy Scalia wrote in the decision:

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."

So SCOTUS has already decided this. Can you say "legal precedent?"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1933 Apr 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
My 'logic' is this. A man believes that gay marriage is a sin, he shouldn't be fined or locked up for that. If he thinks baking a cake for a gay wedding or taking photos of a gay wedding violates his religious beliefs and has him participating in a sinful act then that belief is protected by the 1st amendment. Let the justices decide.
If you are waiting for scripture from me you'll be waiting forever.
So if I believe paying taxes is a sin, then I shouldn't be fined or locked up for refusing to pay them?

The justices have already decided the 1st amendment isn't justification to break the law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1934 Apr 6, 2014
Talibangelicals Uber wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you don't accept simple facts.
'
It is you that refuses to accept simple facts.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/atag...

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1935 Apr 6, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I know that you don't personally get your prejudices from the Christian Bible. But you fight for the right of people who do to discriminate.
2. And you refuse to answer the question why the same right to discriminate on religious beliefs does not apply to the waiter or the real estate agent or the janitor.
3. If they sincerely believe that gay people are committing a sin and serving them in their chosen vocations violates their religious beliefs, why are they any less important than the bakers'?
4. The fact is that you can't provide a legal principle that determines legal vs illegal discrimination.
5. We've had this conversation in America before. And we decided that we don't give every business the right to decide who is and isn't worthy of service. We learned the hard way that it's bad for society.
1. I support the 1st amendment.
2. I did answer.
3. They're not. One life/person is as important as another regardless of sexual orientation. The baker's right to practice his religion is just as important as yours.These men should have gone to a baker who would serve them.
4. I think the baker should be protected by the 1st amendment. I have said, repeatedly, let the justices decide.
5. Businesses can't decide, people do that. In this case the business couldn't be much smaller, the baker basically is the business. Same with Elane photography. The baker never said they weren't worthy of a cake, he said his religion prevents him from baking one for a gay wedding.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1936 Apr 6, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You aren't one of god's children, as in "Our father who art in heaven?" Too bad for you that you apparently didn't make the cut.. And I never blamed god. You lied.(Or as I like to point out, bore false witness.)
Your parents are responsible for your being here, no one else.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1937 Apr 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So if I believe paying taxes is a sin, then I shouldn't be fined or locked up for refusing to pay them?
The justices have already decided the 1st amendment isn't justification to break the law.
I hope these cases get to the supreme court, let them decide.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 23 min ALL ABOUT THE FRE... 31,202
3 states, plaintiffs want Supreme Court to hear... 1 hr nhjeff 14
Gay marriage opponents take lower profile 2 hr Tam Phat 7
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr KiMare 24,895
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 hr Dick Topick 49,534
Protester storms Families meeting 5 hr Fa-Foxy 4
'Gayborhoods' fade with growing acceptance of LGBT 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••