Justices may decide if vendors can sn...

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

There are 2815 comments on the Daily Press & Argus story from Mar 20, 2014, titled Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings. In it, Daily Press & Argus reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Press & Argus.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#848 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
In reality, there never was a remotely legitimate religious objection to racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was codified by law at the time.
The exacts same argument against the mixing of races are being raised in these case, the God given right to bigotry. Only the target has changed. Their objection now is no more legitimate than it was back then. FYI, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been codified into the law of thirteen states and many municipalities. It is why we have cases like the New Mexico photographer and the Colorado baker, they broke the law.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#849 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
Please, don't take the bother bother citing the ACLU's case brief again. You've explained it a million times, and I read it and understand what they're saying. Honest.
IMO-that's "in my opinion", an at-will contractual arrangement for specific good/service for s specfic purpose isn't a matter of "public accommodation" such as walking in to Dunkin Donuts and buying a box of glazed for the office.

"Simply put, there are no damages to a proprietor in providing service to a homosexual couple, even if they feel that it is wrong, sinful, or icky."
There are no damages to the couple if one baker will not agree to make them the cake for the specific event the couple wants, even if the couple feels the religious objection the baker provides is " wrong, sinful, or icky."
What 'freedom' or "protection' is gained if you take someone else's away?
What is considered a public accommodation and the goods and services required to be provided on an equal basis varies from state to state and even by community and there are federal laws to consider as well. The New Mexico photographer and the Colorado baker just happened to be doing business in states where discrimination on the basis of orientation is prohibited, their actions and the services they refused, covered under the law. The damage done here is that these couples had their rights violated while being ambushed by the owner's God ordained bigotry. You know, just like when God hated Black folk eating at the same lunch counters as Whites. I guess there was no damage done there either.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#850 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker's objection was the event that the same-sex couple happened to be particpating in.
The court docs don't call the baker's claim into question RE: its sincerity-they just ruled on a presumed ill effect. They never said the baker was lying..
Declaring something a distinction without a difference means that the event and the people are declared on equal legal footing. That's what "without a difference" means. It means "not different", or "the same".
I saw right through that. Gay weddings(or, if you insist, any event where gays are the hosts/guests) are now events with special legal status apart from other events.
That's what the ruling says.
Nope, it's declaring the baker's CLAIM a distinction without a difference.

Nope, the event has not special legal status- only the PEOPLE involved in the event.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#851 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
He/she thinks it was.
Yes, he THINKS it was.

The court ruled it WASN'T.
Dan

United States

#852 Mar 28, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>What is considered a public accommodation and the goods and services required to be provided on an equal basis varies from state to state and even by community and there are federal laws to consider as well. The New Mexico photographer and the Colorado baker just happened to be doing business in states where discrimination on the basis of orientation is prohibited, their actions and the services they refused, covered under the law. The damage done here is that these couples had their rights violated while being ambushed by the owner's God ordained bigotry. You know, just like when God hated Black folk eating at the same lunch counters as Whites. I guess there was no damage done there either.
Nope, not " just like when God hated Black folk eating at the same lunch counters as Whites".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#853 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If the same couple enters that bakery for a cake for the next event they hold, he has to bake the cake or be fined/jailed.
Nope, he can simply say he's too busy or doesn't do those kind of events.
Dan

United States

#854 Mar 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it's declaring the baker's CLAIM a distinction without a difference.
Nope, the event has not special legal status- only the PEOPLE involved in the event.
Sure it does.

If you can't tender an objection to the event, then it has protected status-because gay people are in it. The judge said so. You said so.

If I'm in the event, that doesn't happen.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#855 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker's objection was the event that the same-sex couple happened to be particpating in.
As opposed to one of those same-sex marriages that a heterosexual couple would have?

LOL...dude....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#856 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
Nope, not " just like when God hated Black folk eating at the same lunch counters as Whites".
It's not my fault you don't like the truth, it doesn't change the fact that it is the truth. Bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals in the name of God is no more legitimate than the same bigotry and discrimination based on race being blamed on time honored religious tradition. It's why you confused what you said with a rebuttal to what I said. Try again.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#857 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does.
If you can't tender an objection to the event, then it has protected status-because gay people are in it. The judge said so. You said so.
If I'm in the event, that doesn't happen.
Anyone can refuse to serve weddings, as long as they're not doing it because of the race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of the people attending.

If you're in the event and the baker refuses to bake a cake because he doesn't like your race or sexual orientation or gender or ethnicity, then he broke the law as well.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#858 Mar 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says? What law is that?
A little known entity called the Federal Trade Commission.

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0228-sol...

or http://www.ftc.gov/complaint

You might also contact your local Better Business Bureau or your State Attorney General.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#859 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does.
If you can't tender an objection to the event, then it has protected status-because gay people are in it. The judge said so. You said so.
If I'm in the event, that doesn't happen.
You already have that protection, Doofus Dan;0)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#860 Mar 28, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What I fail to understand is how businesses owned by bigoted owners have rights, but events sponsored by two members of a protected class would not.
The gay couple's rights end where the bakers rights begin. It is wrong for the government to play favorites and give special rights to certain groups.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#861 Mar 28, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Businesses are no more people than are events. Both are organized by and for the benefit of people.
Businesses are owned by people. It is the individual who has rights not his business. And the customers rights end where the business owners rights begin.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#862 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, to have an event of their choosing-but not to command people's labor in service to those events.
No one was commanded, money was offered in trade for the baker's chosen business and goods. That's kinda what bakers do....

Now, I could go in pointing a gun and commanding/demanding a cake....lol....Doofus Dan fails again.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#863 Mar 28, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an ignorant taunt which disregards the deliberate malfeasance that MANY people are capable of.
Why do you want to give those people carte blanche to screw the rest of us over?
Sheepie has been very clear that nothing should happen with out the government being involved. Sheepie does not want any of us making our own decisions, he has repeatedly stressed the importance and necessity of obeying those sociopathic nutcases who believe they have a divine right to rules over us. So my question is a valid one deserving an answer!

Why does Sheepie believe that the criminals in congress can run his life better than he can. He also believes that the government should be telling you how you should be living your life as well. He thinks we are all incapable and too incompetent to know the right thing to do, so he wants the government he loves and worships to rule over every aspect of our lives from the moment we are born until the moment of our death. Ask him.

I want government to stop screwing us over and Sheepie wants it to continue at a faster rate.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#864 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Busniesses aren't organized for people's benefit.
That is something that is taught in the government indoctrination centers where people are brainwashed.

Are there no small business owners in here? I never organized any of my businesses except for profit. And I discriminated all the time against stupid people who tried to cheat me. If I hadn't I would have been out of business in no time.

Part of the problem in here is too many people do not see how they discriminate all the time. Like when they ask a man out instead of a woman, or they ask a young man instead of an old man. Or a white man instead of a black man. Why when he discriminates all day long should he stop just because he opens a business?

Someone may be of the opinion that it is wrong to discriminate and they would be right, but it doesn't stop them from doing it all day long. When they go to McDonalds instead of Burger King they are discriminating against Burger King.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#865 Mar 28, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Sheepie has been very clear that nothing should happen with out the government being involved. Sheepie does not want any of us making our own decisions, he has repeatedly stressed the importance and necessity of obeying those sociopathic nutcases who believe they have a divine right to rules over us. So my question is a valid one deserving an answer!
Why does Sheepie believe that the criminals in congress can run his life better than he can. He also believes that the government should be telling you how you should be living your life as well. He thinks we are all incapable and too incompetent to know the right thing to do, so he wants the government he loves and worships to rule over every aspect of our lives from the moment we are born until the moment of our death. Ask him.
I want government to stop screwing us over and Sheepie wants it to continue at a faster rate.
You've said similar things about me, and it was nothing but mischaracterization. I have every reason to believe the same is true here.

But what I want to know is, what recourse do you suggest when someone commits wrongs against society, if we are to have no government. If there isn't the slightest regulation in business, then what can we do if a business decides to use wilderness lands as a dumping ground (or would there BE no wilderness lands if there is no government)? What if your local baker makes cakes up front, and heroin in the back? What if they could not care less about sprinkler systems, or the dangers of asbestos? What do we DO, in the absence of regulation, when these businesses do something that would otherwise be a crime? Nothing? Do we loot them? Hold kangaroo courts? What ALTERNATIVE do you suggest for holding people responsible for their transgressions?

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#866 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
" treated the same as any other customer having a similar event "
Well, that isn't happening now, is it?
The law doesn't consider my event as an extension of me if I'm refused service from a vendor.
And what what reason would the vendor have to refuse you, can't pay, already have bad credit there, you spit in the floor and they threw you out before you could make your request???

Wonder how many wedding cakes the baker has made in his years of service, he didn't refuse any heterosexual couples did he? Hmmmm, is he against "heterosexual" weddings, "gay" weddings or "pet" weddings....put your thinking cap on DoofusDan.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#867 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If the same couple enters that bakery for a cake for the next event they hold, he has to bake the cake or be fined/jailed.
Ooooh, now you're a fortune teller...LMFAO!

Tell me, if you get a speeding ticket do you make it a point to drive faster next time....oh wait, you probably do ;0)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lesbian and bisexual girls more likely than oth... 49 min What the 2
News Americans oppose bathroom laws limiting transge... 51 min YouDidntBuildThat 14
NE Jade, would you be my prom date? 1 hr Normal Decent Hetero 3
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 1 hr FireStorm 100
Best Gay Dating Apps 1 hr Chuck E 5
News Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 1 hr FireStorm 5
News Sweden to offer compensation for transgender st... 1 hr FireStorm 2
News Anxiety in America up since Donald Trump became... 1 hr FireStorm 81
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 46,329
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr Wondering 5,416
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr Strel 25,265
More from around the web