PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Court Says Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights


The Rick
06-05-2012, 01:15 PM
:spock:
Court Says Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights
By Todd Starnes

The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the state’s Civil Rights Commission that a Christian photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s discrimination law.

“Elane Photography may not discriminate in its commercial activities against protected classes as the basis for expressing its religious freedom,” Judge Tim Garcia wrote in a 45-page ruling.

The case dates back to 2006 when Vanessa Willock tried to hire Elane Photography for a “same-gender ceremony.” New Mexico law does not recognize either marriage or civil unions between persons of the same sex.

Elane Hugenin declined to accept the job and explained to Willock that because of their Christian beliefs the studio only handled “traditional weddings.”

In 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination. The studio is owned by a young Christian husband and wife who based their refusal on their religious beliefs.

The Court of Appeals determined that a photo studio is considered a public accommodation – much like a restaurant or a store. As such, the photo studio may not refuse services based on sexual orientation or gender identity – even if doing so would violate the religious principles of the owners.

“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these government interests,” Garcia wrote.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group, represented the photography studio. They plan to appeal the ruling.

“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” senior counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement. “Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”

But the court ruled that once a business offers a service publicly, they must do so “without impermissible exception.”

Elane Photography posed a hypothetical situation to support its argument – imaging what would happen if an African-American photographer refused to photograph a Ku-Klux-Klan rally because the photographer “wanted to refrain from using her photography to communicate a message that she finds deeply offensive.”

However, Judge Garcia said the argument fails as a matter of law.

“The Ku-Klux-Klan is not a protected class,” he wrote. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”

The court ruled that the Christian photography company must pay fines totaling nearly $7,000.

You can read the entire court decision by clicking here.

Todd is the author of “Dispatches From Bitter America.” The book is endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy!
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/court-says-gay-rights-trump-religious-rights.html

Reaper16
06-05-2012, 01:20 PM
I'm not sure I agree that a photo studio is a public accommodation.

Chief Faithful
06-05-2012, 01:21 PM
I didn't know that sexual orientation was a protected class.

The Rick
06-05-2012, 01:22 PM
I'm not sure I agree that a photo studio is a public accommodation.
Exactly. At first glance, seems like the equivalent of forcing an artist to paint a picture of something they don't want paint.

Mile High Mania
06-05-2012, 01:28 PM
So, what about a web designer?

Let's say this guy owns his own web design business... a GBLT group inquires about his services to build and design a website for them. Can he just refuse or is he also in the same group as the photographer?

vailpass
06-05-2012, 01:29 PM
These cocksuckers are going to bring about a serious backlash on themselves.
And not in the way they enjoy.

Setsuna
06-05-2012, 01:50 PM
These one who sucks the peniss are going to bring about a serious backlash on themselves.
And not in the way they enjoy.

ROFLLMAOROFLLMAOROFL :clap:

If he owns his own business, I don't see how he doesn't have the right to deny his business. Does he have a monopoly on the photography market in that city?

mikey23545
06-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Soon, two percent of the population will form an oligarchical ruling class in the U.S.

La literatura
06-05-2012, 07:33 PM
I didn't know that sexual orientation was a protected class.

I think a state could determine their own additional protected classes, even if the federal courts do not recognize it at federal common law. Perhaps New Mexico has done so.

I don't think sexual orientation should be recognized as a protected class, however. The arch of equality for gays is tremendously positive, and in 10 years, it will probably be absurd to think that gays were once prohibited from even having gay sex.

It's an irritating ruling, because people who believe that gay marriage is wrong should be able to decline their photography services to a gay couple. Ideally, Christian businesses should be able to be open about who their customer preferences are (traditional marriages), and non-traditional couples should seek out the better business that is open to them. We would let the market decide.

RedNeckRaider
06-05-2012, 07:34 PM
I think a state could determine their own additional protected classes, even if the federal courts do not recognize it at federal common law. Perhaps New Mexico has done so.

I don't think sexual orientation should be recognized as a protected class, however. The arch of equality for gays is tremendously positive, and in 10 years, it will probably be absurd to think that gays were once prohibited from even having gay sex.

It's an irritating ruling, because people who believe that gay marriage is wrong should be able to decline their photography services to a gay couple. Ideally, Christian businesses should be able to be open about who their customer preferences are (traditional marriages), and non-traditional couples should seek out the better business that is open to them. We would let the market decide.

Not if they follow the bible :rolleyes:

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 07:37 PM
It's silly.

However...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7ASpPxh0FT1xOhPGXohCafcvnQjnbAN5ElrEXCx7qDU_rJAupw9sCnREl

RedNeckRaider
06-05-2012, 07:40 PM
It's silly.

However...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7ASpPxh0FT1xOhPGXohCafcvnQjnbAN5ElrEXCx7qDU_rJAupw9sCnREl

Prayer has promoted bigotry throughout history~

alnorth
06-05-2012, 07:46 PM
I personally believe anyone should be able to refuse to sell to, or do business with, anyone for any reason. Trying to restrict that is only going to cause them to come up with any other reason they can think of to say no.

If an old-timey southern restaurant owner wants to refuse to serve "coloreds", he should be able to do so. If a car salesman, or this photographer insists on doing business with a woman's husband and never with her, they should be able to do so. The consequence for doing something like this which the community abhors should be boycotts, losing business, bad publicity, etc. (exception: if you provide some kind of vital service important to public health like a pharmacy or hospital, you don't get that kind of leeway)

However, if we are going to have laws that say a public business is not allowed to refuse service to protected classes, and if minority races and women are considered protected classes, then I don't think this case be an exception at all. Either a business should be able to refuse to do business with any race, gender, or sexual orientation, or they shouldn't be able to refuse any of them.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 07:47 PM
I think a state could determine their own additional protected classes, even if the federal courts do not recognize it at federal common law. Perhaps New Mexico has done so.

I don't think sexual orientation should be recognized as a protected class, however. The arch of equality for gays is tremendously positive, and in 10 years, it will probably be absurd to think that gays were once prohibited from even having gay sex.

It's an irritating ruling, because people who believe that gay marriage is wrong should be able to decline their photography services to a gay couple. Ideally, Christian businesses should be able to be open about who their customer preferences are (traditional marriages), and non-traditional couples should seek out the better business that is open to them. We would let the market decide.

If women and African Americans are protected classes, and should continue to be protected classes, I find it hard to believe that gays should not. (I know the feds haven't done so yet, but they probably will pretty soon)

La literatura
06-05-2012, 07:50 PM
I personally believe anyone should be able to refuse to sell to, or do business with, anyone for any reason. Trying to restrict that is only going to cause them to come up with any other reason they can think of to say no.

If an old-timey southern restaurant owner wants to refuse to serve "coloreds", he should be able to do so. If a car salesman, or this photographer insists on doing business with a woman's husband and never with her, they should be able to do so. The consequence for doing something like this which the community abhors should be boycotts, losing business, bad publicity, etc. (exception: if you provide some kind of vital service important to public health like a pharmacy or hospital, you don't get that kind of leeway)

However, if we are going to have laws that say a public business is not allowed to refuse service to protected classes, and if minority races and women are considered protected classes, then I don't think this should be an exception at all. Either a business should be able to refuse to do business with any race, gender, or sexual orientation, or they shouldn't be able to refuse any of them.

There is a small distinction between "sexual orientation" and "gay marriage" that I think is important, though. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, but gay marriage is an act that one does.

RedNeckRaider
06-05-2012, 07:50 PM
There is a small distinction between "sexual orientation" and "gay marriage" that I think is important, though. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, but gay marriage is an act that one does.

LMAO

La literatura
06-05-2012, 07:51 PM
LMAO

Is that not true?

alnorth
06-05-2012, 07:52 PM
There is a small distinction between "sexual orientation" and "gay marriage" that I think is important, though. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, but gay marriage is an act that one does.

He's not a priest asked to marry a gay couple. He's just a photographer. He's only being asked to take pictures.

La literatura
06-05-2012, 07:54 PM
He's not a priest asked to marry a gay couple. He's just a photographer. He's only being asked to take pictures.

Gay marriage pictures, though. Wedding pictures are supposed to be part of the larger celebration of the wedding. People want photographers who are basically celebrating with the couple. They are intended to apply their art in a way the best showcases the event.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 07:56 PM
It shouldn't have been hard for this photographer to get them to buzz off.

"I'm sorry, but I don't do photos of gay weddings. Here are the phone numbers of a few who do. If you insist on hiring me, then I don't know if you'll be happy with my work because I don't do this sort of thing. Therefore, I'm going to ask you to sign this document which clearly says that due to my lack of experience with that kind of event, there is a very high probability that my pictures will not be acceptable to you, and you therefore waive all right to sue me to get your money back."

"No? You are going to hire someone else? OK, bye"

La literatura
06-05-2012, 08:00 PM
It shouldn't have been hard for this photographer to get them to buzz off.

"I'm sorry, but I don't do photos of gay weddings. Here are the phone numbers of a few who do. If you insist on hiring me, then I don't know if you'll be happy with my work because I don't do this sort of thing. Therefore, I'm going to ask you to sign this document which clearly says that due to my lack of experience with that kind of event, there is a very high probability that my pictures will not be acceptable to you, and you therefore waive all right to sue me to get your money back."

"No? You are going to hire someone else? OK, bye"

I would think so, and I would think that the gay couple would be okay. But we could easily come up with a similar conversation made by the racist with the black person looking for some food.

alnorth
06-05-2012, 08:02 PM
I would think so, and I would think that the gay couple would be okay. But we could easily come up with a similar conversation made by the racist with the black person looking for some food.

If you aren't actually denying service, I don't think it is illegal to be a loudmouthed racist jerk who insults his customers.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 08:09 PM
Put the word "gay" before "rights" and you have special rights which are not fundamental rights.

La literatura
06-05-2012, 08:12 PM
Put the word "gay" before "rights" and you have special rights which are not fundamental rights.

Hmm. Do you think equal protection for black people is a fundamental right?

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 08:42 PM
Put the word "gay" before "rights" and you have special rights which are not fundamental rights.

fine. but until the bigoted assholes disappear in the rapture, some people need protecting. :thumb:

stevieray
06-05-2012, 08:57 PM
odd situation....as an Artist...I get to choose what I will and won't paint...pretty sure I can't be sued for refusing to work for a client.

Brock
06-05-2012, 09:11 PM
That's a law I doubt will stand much scrutiny.

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 05:56 PM
http://www.thepinkswastika.com/mediac/400_0/media/Hohne$20States$20the$20ugly$20facts.jpg

In response to critics who assert that claims made in The Pink Swastika are "baseless," or represent "wild speculation" we will provide extra documentation for certain key facts that will highlight the reliability of our sources. The first key assertion of the book is that the Nazi Party met in a "gay" bar, an outrageous claim to make if it were false, but let's look at the source.


This fact was gathered from German Journalist Heinz Hohne's 1971 printing of The Order of the Death's Head, called "A monumental achievement" by the New York Times Book Review.

theelusiveeightrop
03-23-2013, 06:23 PM
:tinfoil:

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 06:27 PM
Where did respected journalist Hohne get his facts for the above passage?

Primarily, the Munich Criminal Court trial records. Secondarily, The Munich Post newspaper.


Wild speculation? The documentation speaks for itself


http://www.thepinkswastika.com/mediac/400_0/media/Documentation.jpg

Bowser
03-23-2013, 06:32 PM
WTF is this? Why do you keep bumping shit nobody but you gives a fuck about?

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 06:45 PM
WTF is this? Why do you keep bumping shit nobody but you gives a **** about?

I think it's interesting that the nazi party was full of homosexuals. Did you know that most serial killers are homosexuals?

it's fascinating stuff.

Dave Lane
03-23-2013, 06:49 PM
I think it's interesting that the nazi party was full of homosexuals. Did you know that most serial killers are homosexuals?

it's fascinating stuff.

Look I don't give a damn that its obvious you are a homosexual. Duh everyone already knows that.

Just shutup about it. Despite the fact I just bought a very good Pro camera doesn't mean you can compel me to shoot your gay wedding.

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 06:52 PM
Naturally, in the paramilitary organization of the SA, Hitler Youth, etc., even the elite SS, the forms of homosexuality that are characteristic of such all-male bodies were as common as they always are...it was quite fundamental to Nazi ideology that men were to be properly “masculine”...when male homosexuality disguises itself as a cult of “manliness” and virility, it is less obnoxious from the fascist standpoint than is the softening of the gender division that homosexuality invariably involves when it is allowed to express itself freely (Heger:10f).

This, then, is the explanation for the paradox of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals. It is found in the history of two irreconcilable philosophies linked by a common sexual dysfunction. The roots of this conflict extend back into the eighteenth century and span a 70-year period which saw the rise of homosexual militancy in the movement that gave Nazism to the world.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 06:53 PM
WTF is this? Why do you keep bumping shit nobody but you gives a **** about?

Where should he post these gay-related items that he's been posting? Should he clutter up an active thread with off-topic stuff? You don't need to read these bumped threads. The DC front page gives you the original post date and the last poster who posted so you can easily avoid them.

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 07:01 PM
Hey look. I'm just looking to point out something that I think is interesting. Right now in America, we have a radical gay movement pushing it's agenda. They talk about anti-bullying but if you look and see it's them who are doing all the bullying.

I'm just saying their are similarities between this movement and the Nazi movement. Disagree, thats fine. But I'm giving you facts.

Radical homosexual control mass media and the entertainment industry. We saw the same shit in nazi germany.

LOOK IT UP.

WhawhaWhat
03-23-2013, 07:01 PM
Where should he post these gay-related items that he's been posting? Should he clutter up an active thread with off-topic stuff? You don't need to read these bumped threads. The DC front page gives you the original post date and the last poster who posted so you can easily avoid them.

Is he not allowed to start his own thread? Maybe something titled "General Bigotry".

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 07:02 PM
Is he not allowed to start his own thread? Maybe something titled "General Bigotry".

No. I can't start threads. Why don't you start one.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:04 PM
Where should he post these gay-related items that he's been posting? Should he clutter up an active thread with off-topic stuff? You don't need to read these bumped threads. The DC front page gives you the original post date and the last poster who posted so you can easily avoid them.

He's bumping obscure threads for irrelevant posts. It's annoying. If Frankie were the one doing it, I'd doubt you'd be a big fan, either.

If you find this information about gay nazis interesting, I'd recommend the two of you take it to PMs, or maybe friend him on Facebook and chat it up there. Of course, that would completely remove the opportunity for him to be annoying in this forum, or for you to white kight him just becasue you can. The rest of us would be ok with that, though.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:06 PM
Hey look. I'm just looking to point out something that I think is interesting. Right now in America, we have a radical gay movement pushing it's agenda. They talk about anti-bullying but if you look and see it's them who are doing all the bullying.

I'm just saying their are similarities between this movement and the Nazi movement. Disagree, thats fine. But I'm giving you facts.

Radical homosexual control mass media and the entertainment industry. We saw the same shit in nazi germany.

LOOK IT UP.

LMAO

So now we're a country full of nazis for not turning a blind eye to bullying. Brilliant.

Obama getting re-elected has really fried your wires. You need a productive hobby. Take up checkers or something.

|Zach|
03-23-2013, 07:07 PM
When it comes to wedding photography why on earth would you want someone to photograph it if they are so out of line with how you believe. I wonder how this client\photographer match even began in the first place.

Weird situation. Don't understand it.

I mean I decline wedding clients if it doesn't feel like a good match personality wise or if they are assholes.

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 07:07 PM
He's bumping obscure threads for irrelevant posts. It's annoying. If Frankie were the one doing it, I'd doubt you'd be a big fan, either.

If you find this information about gay nazis interesting, I'd recommend the two of you take it to PMs, or maybe friend him on Facebook and chat it up there. Of course, that would completely remove the opportunity for him to be annoying in this forum, or for you to white kight him just becasue you can. The rest of us would be ok with that, though.

Thus we found an obscure reference to Hitler as a Manichaean in Steven Katz’s The Holocaust in Historical Context, Volume 1, of interest. Arthur Evans’ Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture provides some illumination here. Mani, for whom Manichaeism is named, was a third century Prince of Babylon who devised his own form of Gnosticism. Gnostics blended pagan sex rituals and Mother Goddess worship with elements of New Testament Christianity and “rejected Jehovah God as an evil demon.” Manichaeism imposed on Gnosticism a caste system of leaders (elect) and followers (hearers).

A Manichaean sect called the Bogomils (later called the Cathars) arose in Bulgaria and spread across Europe. Homosexuality became so closely associated with these Bulgarian heretics that the practice became known as “buggery.” Indeed, “the word for Cathar in most European languages came to be the word for homosexual: in German, Ketzer, in Italian, Gazarro, and in French, Herite....Heresy and homosexuality became so interchangeable that those accused of heresy attempted to prove their innocence by claiming heterosexuality” (Evans:51ff).

We probably all take for granted the fact that today our modern world culture is dominated by the religions based on the Mosaic law (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam). In their orthodox forms each of these religions regards homosexuality as an abomination. But pagan cultures have no such prohibition. (By definition, pagans are people who are not Jews, Christians or Moslems). In pagan cultures, homosexuals as a group often hold an elevated position in religion and society. When pagan civilizations ruled the world, homosexuality and pederasty were widely practiced and accepted.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:09 PM
He's bumping obscure threads for irrelevant posts. It's annoying. If Frankie were the one doing it, I'd doubt you'd be a big fan, either.

If you find this information about gay nazis interesting, I'd recommend the two of you take it to PMs, or maybe friend him on Facebook and chat it up there. Of course, that would completely remove the opportunity for him to be annoying in this forum, or for you to white kight him just becasue you can. The rest of us would be ok with that, though.

I don't have any problem with Frankie or anyone else bumping old threads. I might make fun of them for the things they post, but I'm not going to whine about bumps. I don't think there's anything wrong with thread bumps unless it starts to crowd out active threads. Right now, DC is a pretty low-traffic forum.

He wouldn't be bumping these threads if he were allowed to create new ones, btw.

|Zach|
03-23-2013, 07:10 PM
I don't have any problem with Frankie or anyone else bumping old threads. I might make fun of them for the things they post, but I'm not going to whine about bumps. I don't think there's anything wrong with thread bumps unless it starts to crowd out active threads. Right now, DC is a pretty low-traffic forum.

He wouldn't be bumping these threads if he were allowed to create new ones, btw.

Pat, on Mad Crapper's diiiicccckkkkkk

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:10 PM
When it comes to wedding photography why on earth would you want someone to photograph it if they are so out of line with how you believe. I wonder how this client\photographer match even began in the first place.

Weird situation. Don't understand it.

I mean I decline wedding clients if it doesn't feel like a good match personality wise or if they are assholes.

Most likely, it was a set up with litigation in mind. And apparently this Christian photographer was too willing to explain their reason for declining the opportunity.

|Zach|
03-23-2013, 07:11 PM
Most likely, it was a set up with litigation in mind. And apparently this Christian photographer was too willing to explain their reason for declining the opportunity.

Yup, that was dumb.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:11 PM
Pat, on Mad Crapper's diiiicccckkkkkk

What do you think, penchief? Respectful?

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:12 PM
I don't have any problem with Frankie or anyone else bumping old threads. I might make fun of them for the things they post, but I'm not going to whine about bumps. I don't think there's anything wrong with thread bumps unless it starts to crowd out active threads. Right now, DC is a pretty low-traffic forum.

He wouldn't be bumping these threads if he were allowed to create new ones, btw.

Shtsprayer is going to get mad if you make him wait for his sammich.

|Zach|
03-23-2013, 07:12 PM
What do you think, penchief? Respectful?

I ignore that guy. He creeps me out.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:13 PM
I don't have any problem with Frankie or anyone else bumping old threads. I might make fun of them for the things they post, but I'm not going to whine about bumps. I don't think there's anything wrong with thread bumps unless it starts to crowd out active threads. Right now, DC is a pretty low-traffic forum.

He wouldn't be bumping these threads if he were allowed to create new ones, btw.

And wasn't it decreed that bumping old threads for nonsensical purposes was a banable offense? Was that one of the rules you railed against the establishment about?

Comrade Crapski
03-23-2013, 07:14 PM
I just think it's bizarre behavior that people would complain about me bumping old threads, but continue to post in them.

And they won't start any new threads.

Weird.

Dave Lane
03-23-2013, 07:17 PM
He's bumping obscure threads for irrelevant posts.


Isn't that bannable?

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:18 PM
And wasn't it decreed that bumping old threads for nonsensical purposes was a banable offense? Was that one of the rules you railed against the establishment about?

I've explained to you multiple times why this isn't a nonsensical purpose. And yes, I criticized that rule because I anticipated idiotic complaints like yours. The moderators assured us that it was a rule intended to prevent only extreme cases like someone who is spamming the board with bumps for no purpose other than to spam the board.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:19 PM
I just think it's bizarre behavior that people would complain about me bumping old threads, but continue to post in them.

And they won't start any new threads.

Weird.

Right. They wouldn't even be in DC right now if it weren't for your apparently compelling bump. DC is a ghost town at the moment.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:21 PM
I've explained to you multiple times why this isn't a nonsensical purpose. And yes, I criticized that rule because I anticipated idiotic complaints like yours. The moderators assured us that it was a rule intended to prevent only extreme cases like someone who is spamming the board with bumps for no purpose other than to spam the board.

We should all find about ten dead threads and make furthering points on dead conversations that nobody is interested in. That would be cool.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:25 PM
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jon-Stewart-saying-Oh-Snap.gif

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2013, 07:28 PM
We should all find about ten dead threads and make furthering points on dead conversations that nobody is interested in. That would be cool.

It should be noted that the old threads are the same as the new threads. When it really comes down to it it is the same arguments and new threads only offer new packaging~

LiveSteam
03-23-2013, 07:30 PM
Free Comrade Crapski

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:30 PM
It should be noted that the old threads are the same as the new threads. When it really comes down to it it is the same arguments and new threads only offer new packaging~

Essentially.

It is humorous to look back and watch the left rail against the right when Dub was in the White House, and now to watch the right rail against the left with Barry sitting there. The circle of DC life, if you will.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:37 PM
We should all find about ten dead threads and make furthering points on dead conversations that nobody is interested in. That would be cool.

I doubt that you have anything interesting enough to say to attract any attention.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:38 PM
Essentially.

It is humorous to look back and watch the left rail against the right when Dub was in the White House, and now to watch the right rail against the left with Barry sitting there. The circle of DC life, if you will.

Humorous, but only if it's someone other than SHTSRPAYER doing it, right?

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:40 PM
I doubt that you have anything interesting enough to say to attract any attention.

Scathing burn.

Maybe I'll just find someone to white knight from our evil overlords.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:43 PM
Humorous, but only if it's someone other than SHTSRPAYER doing it, right?

He's a worthless racist fuck to be sure, but just for the sake of clarity I wouldn't be a fan of your mom coming on here and bumping tens of seven year old threads, either.

patteeu
03-23-2013, 07:45 PM
He's a worthless racist **** to be sure, but just for the sake of clarity I wouldn't be a fan of your mom coming on here and bumping tens of seven year old threads, either.

Thanks for the response but you're boring me now.

|Zach|
03-23-2013, 07:45 PM
Humorous, but only if it's someone other than SHTSRPAYER doing it, right?

Ehhh. No anyone who trolls the forum by bumping is annoying.

I don't really want him to go away though. He provides me entertainment.

Bowser
03-23-2013, 07:48 PM
Thanks for the response but you're boring me now.

Stop being mad. It's not like he got permabanned. He'll be back in no time telling us how the country is run by nazis becasue we think bullying is a bad thing.

VAChief
03-23-2013, 08:52 PM
Thanks for the response but you're boring me now.

There is always reality.

J Diddy
03-23-2013, 09:20 PM
I think it's interesting that the nazi party was full of homosexuals. Did you know that most serial killers are homosexuals?

it's fascinating stuff.

The fuck you say.

cosmo20002
03-23-2013, 10:18 PM
Stop being mad. It's not like he got permabanned. He'll be back in no time telling us how the country is run by nazis becasue we think bullying is a bad thing.

He got banned again? LMAO

Easy 6
03-23-2013, 10:33 PM
The crux of the matter to me is... so why did the studio/tog accept the job from this couple, did they not meet and arrange things?

If the studio actually didnt meet them and didnt know ahead of time what kind of ceremony they were taking pics of, thats one thing... its goes against that studios beliefs as people and a business model, and they didnt know it ahead of time.

But it sounds like they were the ones responsible for saying "no gay weddings"... dont take the job, then scoff at the point of transaction, they should clearly advertise their beliefs beforehand.

I smell a game of gotcha from the studio, itching for a fight... **** that, your job is to take pictures, if you object on certain grounds to given circumstances, that needs to be clearly advertised up front.

Otherwise, just take the pictures and take your money.

Bump
03-23-2013, 10:45 PM
when you look at the bible thumpers of the 50's, protesting blacks and ending segregation and shit. It's basically the same shit. Religion is just fucking stupid and hinders the progress of humanity.

listopencil
03-23-2013, 11:18 PM
Interesting story but it's not gay rights trumping religious rights. It's civil rights trumping property rights, and it has been happening since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted.

Der Flöprer
03-24-2013, 08:15 AM
Shame. The guy has completely cracked me up since Obama got reelected. Interestingly enough Pat's favorite mod is the one who dumped him for a week. And yeah, it was for a fuck ton of thread bumping. All to post the same shit in every thread.

Do we have a more homophobic poster on the board? Wonder where that comes from...

Dave Lane
03-24-2013, 09:22 AM
Shame. The guy has completely cracked me up since Obama got reelected. Interestingly enough Pat's favorite mod is the one who dumped him for a week. And yeah, it was for a **** ton of thread bumping. All to post the same shit in every thread.

Do we have a more homophobic poster on the board? Wonder where that comes from...

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much...

And props to who ever put an end to that stupidity.

patteeu
03-24-2013, 11:38 AM
Shame. The guy has completely cracked me up since Obama got reelected. Interestingly enough Pat's favorite mod is the one who dumped him for a week. And yeah, it was for a **** ton of thread bumping. All to post the same shit in every thread.

Do we have a more homophobic poster on the board? Wonder where that comes from...

What's a fuck ton? And how did it cause any problems at all? There's almost no traffic in DC at the moment. And whatever traffic there was, he generated it with his bumped threads.

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 11:47 AM
Its bullshit.

go bowe
03-24-2013, 11:49 AM
Shame. The guy has completely cracked me up since Obama got reelected. Interestingly enough Pat's favorite mod is the one who dumped him for a week. And yeah, it was for a fuck ton of thread bumping. All to post the same shit in every thread.

Do we have a more homophobic poster on the board? Wonder where that comes from...

gee pat, the mods don't seem to share your view of when thread bumping is a bannable offense...

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 11:58 AM
gee pat, the mods don't seem to share your view of when thread bumping is a bannable offense...

Bull shit. You know dam well if ShitSprayer was allowed to start threads like everyone else. The thread bumping would never have happened. Plus this is DC.
I would understand the ban if he was doing it in the Lounge, but not here in DC & under the stupid thread starting restriction placed upon him.
Totally unfair & it wrecked my endless hours of shitsprayer entertainment.:cuss:



& ITS A PUSSY MOVE IMO

Bowser
03-24-2013, 11:59 AM
Bull shit. You know dam well if ShitSprayer was allowed to start threads like everyone else. The thread bumping would never have happened. Plus this is DC.
I would understand the ban if he was doing it in the Lounge, but not here in DC & under the stupid thread starting restriction placed upon him.
Totally unfair & it wrecked my endless hours of shitsprayer entertainment.:cuss:

Now ask yourself, WHY can't Crapski start threads?

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 12:02 PM
Now ask yourself, WHY can't Crapski start threads?

I dnt care why. The dude is riot to watch post. He turns every lib in this place into a boiling pot of piss. & its funny as hell to watch.

patteeu
03-24-2013, 12:05 PM
gee pat, the mods don't seem to share your view of when thread bumping is a bannable offense...

It depends on who's doing the bumping apparently. I'm just repeating what we were told when this vague rule was originally created.

patteeu
03-24-2013, 12:07 PM
Now ask yourself, WHY can't Crapski start threads?

My guess is that it has a lot to do with some of the "cool posters" being big whiners.

Bowser
03-24-2013, 12:08 PM
I dnt care why. The dude is riot to watch post. He turns every lib in this place into a boiling pot of piss. & its funny as hell to watch.

He isn't as bad as he used to be, for sure. He's toned down his racism to just passive aggressive compared to what he used to be.

Why don't you take up the job while he's gone for a week? (And frankly, I don't think he's gone. There's a Trolly McTrollerson posting now)

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 12:09 PM
My guess is that it has a lot to do with some of the "cool posters" being big whiners.

:clap:


Mommy mommy the kids are picking on me again. Thhhhhhstop it,leave me alone or I am going to tell on you

Bowser
03-24-2013, 12:11 PM
My guess is that it has a lot to do with some of the "cool posters" being big whiners.

You need to take a bath in Preparation H, lol.

Where was this outrage when I was banned for four (three?) days, pat? Hurts my feelings!

Bowser
03-24-2013, 12:13 PM
My guess is that it has a lot to do with some of the "cool posters" being big whiners.

:clap:


Mommy mommy the kids are picking on me again. Thhhhhhstop it,leave me alone or I am going to tell on you

LMAO

You guys should go have a nice long spoon session with Crapski. That will make everyone feel better.

Talk about getting people stirred up! Too bad it wasn't a permaban. The meltdown would have rivaled the upcoming Chiefs draft!

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 12:16 PM
LMAO



Talk about getting people stirred up! Too bad it wasn't a permaban. The meltdown would have rivaled the upcoming Chiefs draft!

My bad. I thought it was a lifetime ban.

Bowser
03-24-2013, 12:19 PM
My bad. I thought it was a lifetime ban.

It's a week. Maybe pat misunderstood as well?

patteeu
03-24-2013, 12:26 PM
You need to take a bath in Preparation H, lol.

Where was this outrage when I was banned for four (three?) days, pat? Hurts my feelings!

Sorry, I didn't notice. What were you banned for?

patteeu
03-24-2013, 12:28 PM
It's a week. Maybe pat misunderstood as well?

No, I understood it. That doesn't make it reasonable. Those bumps were purposeful and non-disruptive. There was no reason for a ban of any length.

Der Flöprer
03-24-2013, 12:35 PM
Bull shit. You know dam well if ShitSprayer was allowed to start threads like everyone else. The thread bumping would never have happened. Plus this is DC.
I would understand the ban if he was doing it in the Lounge, but not here in DC & under the stupid thread starting restriction placed upon him.
Totally unfair & it wrecked my endless hours of shitsprayer entertainment.:cuss:



& ITS A PUSSY MOVE IMO

He has been banned repeatedly. I said I would never allow him back and relented. Never say never. He has a place here so I just ignore him. As far as disagreeing with the mods rulings, I say the same thing every time. Feel free to apply for the position. I'm done on the matter. Especially since I had nothing to do with it. Although, I do support his decision.

Bowser
03-24-2013, 12:38 PM
No, I understood it. That doesn't make it reasonable. Those bumps were purposeful and non-disruptive. There was no reason for a ban of any length.

Like I need to explain to you or anyone how he was protesting against his inability to create new threads by bumping tens of defunct threads from years gone by.

The way I see it, it was kind of like the days when he would push the envelope with his racism and personal attacks - he had to know what the ultimate payoff would be, BUT, that's part of his schtick. He knew it was coming sooner or later. Them's the rules.

If you or I were to do the same thing, either here, in the Media Center, or the lounge, we'd get the exact same treatment. Any of us would.

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 12:41 PM
He has been banned repeatedly. I said I would never allow him back and relented. Never say never. He has a place here so I just ignore him. As far as disagreeing with the mods rulings, I say the same thing every time. Feel free to apply for the position. I'm done on the matter. Especially since I had nothing to do with it. Although, I do support his decision.

The pussy move comment I made, was meant to be directed at those that complain to Mods. It was not a shot at you or the Mod team. Just wanna make that clear

LiveSteam
03-24-2013, 12:42 PM
Those bumps were purposeful and non-disruptive. There was no reason for a ban of any length.

this

patteeu
03-24-2013, 12:47 PM
Like I need to explain to you or anyone how he was protesting against his inability to create new threads by bumping tens of defunct threads from years gone by.

The way I see it, it was kind of like the days when he would push the envelope with his racism and personal attacks - he had to know what the ultimate payoff would be, BUT, that's part of his schtick. He knew it was coming sooner or later. Them's the rules.

If you or I were to do the same thing, either here, in the Media Center, or the lounge, we'd get the exact same treatment. Any of us would.

You're thick headed. I told you why he was bumping threads. He had two legitimate reasons for bumping them. First, he was researching penchief posts because he and penchief had gotten into it. And second, since he isn't allowed to start new threads for whatever reason, he was posting new items in relevant old threads. He wasn't bumping threads and saying "bump" or "Peyton Manning!". He was bumping them for a purpose. You and I wouldn't get banned for that.

He only mentioned not being able to start threads when people accused him of randomly bumping threads, so the idea that he was doing it as a protest is kind of crazy. You're making assumptions because you don't know what was going on and because you apparently ignored my explanations. Unfortunately, this is what our mods do too. They don't bother to do investigate what's really going on, they just make assumptions and sometimes it leads them to bad decisions like this.

Why do these bumps bother you so much? No one held a gun to your head and forced you to stick around and keep them going. It makes it seem like your cheerleading for this ban is more about the person than the rule.

RedNeckRaider
03-24-2013, 12:52 PM
Like I need to explain to you or anyone how he was protesting against his inability to create new threads by bumping tens of defunct threads from years gone by.

The way I see it, it was kind of like the days when he would push the envelope with his racism and personal attacks - he had to know what the ultimate payoff would be, BUT, that's part of his schtick. He knew it was coming sooner or later. Them's the rules.

If you or I were to do the same thing, either here, in the Media Center, or the lounge, we'd get the exact same treatment. Any of us would.

Those rules cannot apply to me! They want me on this forum....they need me on this forum...never mind I just finished watching A Few Good Men and had a Nicholson moment~

Bowser
03-24-2013, 01:06 PM
You're thick headed. I told you why he was bumping threads. He had two legitimate reasons for bumping them. First, he was researching penchief posts because he and penchief had gotten into it. And second, since he isn't allowed to start new threads for whatever reason, he was posting new items in relevant old threads. He wasn't bumping threads and saying "bump" or "Peyton Manning!". He was bumping them for a purpose. You and I wouldn't get banned for that.

He only mentioned not being able to start threads when people accused him of randomly bumping threads, so the idea that he was doing it as a protest is kind of crazy. You're making assumptions because you don't know what was going on and because you apparently ignored my explanations. Unfortunately, this is what our mods do too. They don't bother to do investigate what's really going on, they just make assumptions and sometimes it leads them to bad decisions like this.

Why do these bumps bother you so much? No one held a gun to your head and forced you to stick around and keep them going. It makes it seem like your cheerleading for this ban is more about the person than the rule.

I don't like it when blueballs finds old threads in the lounge to bump for nonsensical reasons, either. When it gets to those kind of levels, it's just annoying.

I just did a quick count. Crappy has been banned, what, twelve hours, and the front page alone in DC has 11 threads out of 25 that were bumped by him. And no, not all of them were about penchief. Like I said, it's just his schtick. The only reason you're getting your panties twisted up here is because you happen to agree with everything he posts, which is your choice, which is also fine.

Your issue isn't with me, and you know it. I wasn't the one that banned him, nor did I go running to the mods about anything he was doing. The only time I report posts are the obvious 1 post trolls trying to pimp their websites or sell whatever it is they sell.

You should probably go start Won'tEverGetBannedFromHerePlanet. Power to the people, and all of that.

Bowser
03-24-2013, 01:07 PM
Those rules cannot apply to me! They want me on this forum....they need me on this forum...never mind I just finished watching A Few Good Men and had a Nicholson moment~

Heh, appropriate.

patteeu
03-24-2013, 03:54 PM
I don't like it when blueballs finds old threads in the lounge to bump for nonsensical reasons, either. When it gets to those kind of levels, it's just annoying.

I just did a quick count. Crappy has been banned, what, twelve hours, and the front page alone in DC has 11 threads out of 25 that were bumped by him. And no, not all of them were about penchief. Like I said, it's just his schtick. The only reason you're getting your panties twisted up here is because you happen to agree with everything he posts, which is your choice, which is also fine.

Your issue isn't with me, and you know it. I wasn't the one that banned him, nor did I go running to the mods about anything he was doing. The only time I report posts are the obvious 1 post trolls trying to pimp their websites or sell whatever it is they sell.

You should probably go start Won'tEverGetBannedFromHerePlanet. Power to the people, and all of that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I don't always agree with SHTSPRAYER. The most recent public poll in DC has us on opposite sides.

I just did a quick count and of the 11 threads that were potentially bumped off of the front page, 6 of them haven't been posted on in 48 hours and the rest are older than that. And several of those were most recently active because SHTSPRAYER was posting in them. No harm was done. Like I said in a previous post, most of the DC traffic of late has been generated by SHTSPRAYER. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Bumping 11 old threads in the Lounge would be a different story since there's more activity there. In this ghost town, it's a time for celebration. When DC picks back up, it might be a problem, but not now.

RedNeckRaider
03-24-2013, 04:25 PM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I don't always agree with SHTSPRAYER. The most recent public poll in DC has us on opposite sides.

I just did a quick count and of the 11 threads that were potentially bumped off of the front page, 6 of them haven't been posted on in 48 hours and the rest are older than that. And several of those were most recently active because SHTSPRAYER was posting in them. No harm was done. Like I said in a previous post, most of the DC traffic of late has been generated by SHTSPRAYER. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Bumping 11 old threads in the Lounge would be a different story since there's more activity there. In this ghost town, it's a time for celebration. When DC picks back up, it might be a problem, but not now.

I agree with this being uncalled for. However this guy has race issues. I have pointed out how Direckshun bombs the forum with multiple posts on the same subject and should has had his totally worthless ass banned several times. Shitsprayer and I talked one time about race and he commented of a post I stated how blacks started shit with me because I was white. He talked as though he still had problems with similar experiences. He was curious why I didn't hold the same feelings. I told him that those I ran with and myself stood our ground and those who thought we would fold or backup or give ground learned quick that dog don't hunt. I moved past it it clearly has not. I write this off to previous convictions~

patteeu
03-24-2013, 04:29 PM
I agree with this being uncalled for. However this guy has race issues. I have pointed out how Direckshun bombs the forum with multiple posts on the same subject and should has had his totally worthless ass banned several times. Shitsprayer and I talked one time about race and he commented of a post I stated how blacks started shit with me because I was white. He talked as though he still had problems with similar experiences. He was curious why I didn't hold the same feelings. I told him that those I ran with and myself stood our ground and those who thought we would fold or backup or give ground learned quick that dog don't hunt. I moved past it it clearly has not. I write this off to previous convictions~

I don't think Direckshun deserves to be banned for his serial thread posting. Without pot stirrers like Direckshun and SHTSPRAYER, we wouldn't have nearly as much to talk about.

Dave Lane
03-24-2013, 05:10 PM
I don't think Direckshun deserves to be banned for his serial thread posting. Without pot stirrers like Direckshun and SHTSPRAYER, we wouldn't have nearly as much to talk about.

I count one Direckshun thread on the front page of DC. That's too much? At least 10 Mad Crapper threads are there.

patteeu
03-24-2013, 08:09 PM
I count one Direckshun thread on the front page of DC. That's too much? At least 10 Mad Crapper threads are there.

First, I'm not complaining about Direckshun threads being too much.

Second, Direckshun periodically goes on thread creation binges that rival SHTSPRAYER's bumps in volume. It's kind of surprising to me that you aren't aware of that.

Dave Lane
03-24-2013, 10:46 PM
First, I'm not complaining about Direckshun threads being too much.

Second, Direckshun periodically goes on thread creation binges that rival SHTSPRAYER's bumps in volume. It's kind of surprising to me that you aren't aware of that.

Well I don't hang out here as much as I used too. I'm mostly here for the lawls at this point and the religious threads, maybe poke the gun nuts with a pointed stick every now and again :D

Der Flöprer
03-25-2013, 08:58 AM
The pussy move comment I made, was meant to be directed at those that complain to Mods. It was not a shot at you or the Mod team. Just wanna make that clear

It's all good man. I did misunderstand it, but I wasn't worried. You're my boy, blue. Our friendship extends beyond this board.

Der Flöprer
03-25-2013, 09:03 AM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I don't always agree with SHTSPRAYER. The most recent public poll in DC has us on opposite sides.

I just did a quick count and of the 11 threads that were potentially bumped off of the front page, 6 of them haven't been posted on in 48 hours and the rest are older than that. And several of those were most recently active because SHTSPRAYER was posting in them. No harm was done. Like I said in a previous post, most of the DC traffic of late has been generated by SHTSPRAYER. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Bumping 11 old threads in the Lounge would be a different story since there's more activity there. In this ghost town, it's a time for celebration. When DC picks back up, it might be a problem, but not now.

You wanna know another one of the rules, Pat? When you've been banned, don't come back and make it obvious you are a mult of said banned poster. Ask Joey, and Hootie how that has worked for them. A couple of guys that I advocated strongly to bring back. Hell, I brought back SHTSPRYR. Those are the rules. It's funny how you seem to like the order of things in our political structure under a conservative government, but want all out anarchy on this message board.

Der Flöprer
03-25-2013, 09:05 AM
I don't think Direckshun deserves to be banned for his serial thread posting. Without pot stirrers like Direckshun and SHTSPRAYER, we wouldn't have nearly as much to talk about.

Which is why I brought him back. I was wrong. As long as he can hold himself to a certain standard on the board (ya know, not being an overt racist) he absolutely should be here. And he'll be back Patty. Hold your head up high there, champ. He'll be back. I always hated it when my friends got grounded when I was a kid. Felt like I was being punished too...

LiveSteam
03-25-2013, 09:17 AM
It's all good man. I did misunderstand it, but I wasn't worried. You're my boy, blue. Our friendship extends beyond this board.

:thumb:

patteeu
03-25-2013, 10:09 AM
You wanna know another one of the rules, Pat? When you've been banned, don't come back and make it obvious you are a mult of said banned poster. Ask Joey, and Hootie how that has worked for them. A couple of guys that I advocated strongly to bring back. Hell, I brought back SHTSPRYR. Those are the rules. It's funny how you seem to like the order of things in our political structure under a conservative government, but want all out anarchy on this message board.

Sometimes you say things that aren't very smart. This is one of them. I like freedom. I like rules only when they are necessary, and only when they are spelled out clearly and coherently. And I like authority figures to be held accountable for applying rules consistently. I don't like vague rules and arbitrary enforcement. All of those things apply to my approach to politics and my approach to message boards.

Der Flöprer
03-25-2013, 11:20 AM
Sometimes you say things that aren't very smart. This is one of them. I like freedom. I like rules only when they are necessary, and only when they are spelled out clearly and coherently. And I like authority figures to be held accountable for applying rules consistently. I don't like vague rules and arbitrary enforcement. All of those things apply to my approach to politics and my approach to message boards.

I have to admit Pat, I do look forward to bantering with you. It's entertaining for me. You are a wordsmith, and I'm usually amused by it. Don't you change a thing.

Prison Bitch
03-25-2013, 11:29 AM
No no no. Libs assured me this was not the case, that I had nothing to fear, that this stuff wouldn't happen, and they weren't even interested in pushing it either. This must be a mistake.

patteeu
03-25-2013, 11:35 AM
I have to admit Pat, I do look forward to bantering with you. It's entertaining for me. You are a wordsmith, and I'm usually amused by it. Don't you change a thing.

OK. That's what I'm here for. I'm happy to be of service!

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2013, 12:02 PM
All dude had to say was I am booked doing something else at that time. It's the same if you have renters that you do not want to rent to for whatever reason.

mcan
03-25-2013, 02:49 PM
Is there somebody on this board who really thinks that people who own businesses should still be able to refuse service based on prejudice? Why is this an issue? I would think that even the most ardent, anti-gay, super christian would have told this business owner that they should know better than to turn away gay people and tell them that they're being turned away for that reason!

Might as well hang a "whites only" sign on the door.

Amnorix
03-25-2013, 02:59 PM
No no no. Libs assured me this was not the case, that I had nothing to fear, that this stuff wouldn't happen, and they weren't even interested in pushing it either. This must be a mistake.


The decision doesn't really say what the thread title says it says, and no libs with any clue ever said what you're suggesting they said.

Just for the record.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 03:18 PM
Is there somebody on this board who really thinks that people who own businesses should still be able to refuse service based on prejudice? Why is this an issue? I would think that even the most ardent, anti-gay, super christian would have told this business owner that they should know better than to turn away gay people and tell them that they're being turned away for that reason!

Might as well hang a "whites only" sign on the door.

I have questioned people several times why they even care if gays get married. If they don't agree with the lifestyle fine. I don't agree with it either for that matter. It makes no sense to me but I see no reason to exclude law abiding citizens benefits gained by two people forming a contract. That said I also believe a private business that receives no funding from the government should have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish~

Brock
03-25-2013, 03:37 PM
Is there somebody on this board who really thinks that people who own businesses should still be able to refuse service based on prejudice?

Yes. I believe I should be able to refuse to do business with anyone at any time for any reason.

Amnorix
03-25-2013, 03:38 PM
I have questioned people several times why they even care if gays get married. If they don't agree with the lifestyle fine. I don't agree with it either for that matter. It makes no sense to me but I see no reason to exclude law abiding citizens benefits gained by two people forming a contract. That said I also believe a private business that receives no funding from the government should have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish~


So if, hypothetically, every hotel, motel and restaurant between Washington DC and Florida refuse to service African-Americans, that should be ok?

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 03:46 PM
Yes. I believe I should be able to refuse to do business with anyone at any time for any reason.

If you are running a business that is otherwise open to the public, you want the right to be able to refuse to deal with someone because that person is black. Is that correct?

Brock
03-25-2013, 03:46 PM
If you are running a business that is otherwise open to the public, you want the right to be able to refuse to deal with someone because that person is black. Is that correct?

I believe I should be able to refuse to do business with anyone at any time for any reason.

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 03:49 PM
I believe I should be able to refuse to do business with anyone at any time for any reason.

OK. Say hi to Livesteam at the next Klan meeting.

Brock
03-25-2013, 03:52 PM
OK. Say hi to Livesteam at the next Klan meeting.

Meh. Is that the case even if it's white trash like livestream that I refuse to do business with?

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 04:05 PM
Meh. Is that the case even if it's white trash like livestream that I refuse to do business with?

In that case, you are refusing to do business with him because he's a meth-addled dick. Sounds like you would be basing the decision more on the "trash" and less on the "white."

Not serving someone because they are an asshole is ok. BECAUSE they are black--I don't think that should be ok.

Prison Bitch
03-25-2013, 04:07 PM
The decision doesn't really say what the thread title says it says, and no libs with any clue ever said what you're suggesting they said.

Just for the record.

I said that they want to force religious groups to perform gay marriages. I was told "No way! Not ever! Not a problem, no worries, you can keep your freedoms" Then I posted the link to the Washington state house bill (supported by the Governor) requiring religious facilities be granted to gay marriages. It did not succeed, but the point was made.



So don't pretend the Libs don't want this. They do. THey want to force government to "integrate" gays into every aspect of life as equals, and they'll make religious groups go along with it. By force.

Brock
03-25-2013, 04:07 PM
In that case, you are refusing to do business with him because he's a meth-addled dick. Sounds like you would be basing the decision more on the "trash" and less on the "white."

Not serving someone because they are an asshole is ok. BECAUSE they are black--I don't think that should be ok.

What if they're a black asshole? Do you see what I'm getting at?

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 04:22 PM
So if, hypothetically, every hotel, motel and restaurant between Washington DC and Florida refuse to service African-Americans, that should be ok?

Yes and any idiot who tried that would not be in business very long. If I pulled up to a business that refused to serve someone based on color I would most likely give them the finger and move on. I believe the government needs to get the **** out of our lives. If funded by the government than they should enforce rules. Schools, military, government jobs I have no problem with their input. As far as private owned businesses and personal issues as far as who can get married or what someone eats they can **** clear off~

Frazod
03-25-2013, 04:23 PM
What if they're a black asshole? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Or a noxious liberal vag, for that matter.

patteeu
03-25-2013, 04:26 PM
In that case, you are refusing to do business with him because he's a meth-addled dick. Sounds like you would be basing the decision more on the "trash" and less on the "white."

Not serving someone because they are an asshole is ok. BECAUSE they are black--I don't think that should be ok.

FWIW, he didn't say he would refuse to do business with a black person. He just said he thinks it should be his right. Based on his responses, you don't know whether he's racist against blacks or if blacks are the only people he wants to do business with. The latter might not fly at the klan rally you have him pegged for.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 04:40 PM
FWIW, he didn't say he would refuse to do business with a black person. He just said he thinks it should be his right. Based on his responses, you don't know whether he's racist against blacks or if blacks are the only people he wants to do business with. The latter might not fly at the klan rally you have him pegged for.

Most generally and I believe in this case the racist is the one yelling racism and is projecting. This was put very well in a famous quote:
The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
Ralph Waldo Emerson~

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 04:44 PM
There's no such thing as a "gay" right. There was no right violated here. The court is violating freedom of association and religion which happen to be in the Constitution. In a free country one should be free to do business with whoever they want or not want.

LiveSteam
03-25-2013, 04:46 PM
I haven't laughed this hard in awhile.
WHITE POWER! DEATH TO THE CUMQUATS OF THE WORLD!

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 05:03 PM
What if they're a black asshole? Do you see what I'm getting at?

No, I don't. If they're an asshole, then exclusion on that basis is fine.

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 05:05 PM
FWIW, he didn't say he would refuse to do business with a black person. He just said he thinks it should be his right. Based on his responses, you don't know whether he's racist against blacks or if blacks are the only people he wants to do business with. The latter might not fly at the klan rally you have him pegged for.

I understand what he said and that it sounded like he wanted to reserve his right to refuse service on the basis of, for example, race. I figured the Klan covered several of the likely bases.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 05:06 PM
There's no such thing as a "gay" right. There was no right violated here. The court is violating freedom of association and religion which happen to be in the Constitution. In a free country one should be free to do business with whoever they want or not want.

I know you don't believe any laws created after the original Constitution are important but maybe the Civil RIGHTS Act was violated?

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 05:06 PM
No, I don't. If they're an asshole, then exclusion on that basis is fine.

Some of your friends are black right? You fucking libs and your over compensation LMAO

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 05:08 PM
Ahh, religion and commerce going hand-in-hand just like Jesus wanted...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XRM21GKfQ1w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:10 PM
Ahh, religion and commerce going hand-in-hand just like Jesus wanted...

Irrelevant

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 05:10 PM
Ahh, religion and commerce going hand-in-hand just like Jesus wanted...

:spock:

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 05:12 PM
I said that they want to force religious groups to perform gay marriages. I was told "No way! Not ever! Not a problem, no worries, you can keep your freedoms" Then I posted the link to the Washington state house bill (supported by the Governor) requiring religious facilities be granted to gay marriages. It did not succeed, but the point was made.



So don't pretend the Libs don't want this. They do. THey want to force government to "integrate" gays into every aspect of life as equals, and they'll make religious groups go along with it. By force.

Your link was about requiring a facility that is rented out to the public to be accesible to all people, with discrimination not allowed based on race, religion or gayness. It did not require a church to perform a gay marriage in any way.

If a church wants to get into the facility-rental business, it can't discriminate. If it wants to discriminate, it can stay in the religion business. That sounds reasonable to me.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:13 PM
I know you don't believe any laws created after the original Constitution are important but maybe the Civil RIGHTS Act was violated?

No it wasn't violated. Only to a prog, who have a history of altering the document to expand state power over freedoms. The Constitution trumps that act anyway. You act like there something inherently wrong with Constitution's Bill of Rights which does not allow govt to interfere in religion.

As to "any" laws that's a strawman argument.

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 05:14 PM
Some of your friends are black right? You ****ing libs and your over compensation LMAO

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I think businesses open to the public should have to serve black people. So that makes me racist. Dumbass.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 05:14 PM
Irrelevant

Just pointing out an irony. Jesus didn't believe business should be conducted in a temple, yet Christians think religion allows them to discriminate in their business.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:15 PM
Is there somebody on this board who really thinks that people who own businesses should still be able to refuse service based on prejudice? Why is this an issue? I would think that even the most ardent, anti-gay, super christian would have told this business owner that they should know better than to turn away gay people and tell them that they're being turned away for that reason!

Might as well hang a "whites only" sign on the door.

Have you ever heard of conflicting rights issues?

Freedom of religion trumps this alleged right of gays to demand an individual take their picture. That's fascism.
Getting their picture taken by certain person or member of a group is not a natural right.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:16 PM
Just pointing out an irony. Jesus didn't believe business should be conducted in a temple, yet Christians think religion allows them to discriminate in their business.

It's not irony. You have your categories mixed up is all.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 05:16 PM
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I think businesses open to the public should have to serve black people. So that makes me racist. Dumbass.

Scream louder about your honor maybe people will believe you LMAO

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 05:16 PM
No it wasn't violated. Only to a prog, who have a history of altering the document to expand state power over freedoms. The Constitution trumps that act anyway. You act like there something inherently wrong with Constitution's Bill of Rights which does not allow govt to interfere in religion.

As to "any" laws that's a strawman argument.

No, I act like they didn't get it perfect the first time around, so it has needed amending. The Civil Rights Act is Constitutional. Deal with it.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:17 PM
No, I act like they didn't get it perfect the first time around, so it has needed amending. The Civil Rights Act is Constitutional. Deal with it.

The Civil Rights Act is not an Amendment and this is not a civil rights issue either. The other party has civil rights too.
The Civil Rights Act is positive law not a natural fundamental right being protected. Religion, however, is a fundamental right.

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 05:19 PM
Scream louder about your honor maybe people will believe you LMAO

I guess I don't look at not refusing people service based on their race to be "honorable." I've always thought of it as just ****ing normal, civilized behavior.

And you think Comrade Shitfaced has "race issues." ROFL

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 05:20 PM
I guess I don't look at not refusing people service based on their race to be "honorable." I've always thought of it as just ****ing normal.

And you think Comrade Shitfaced has "race issues." ROFL

Feel free to post anything racist I have posted on this you phony little fuck LMAO

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 05:21 PM
The Civil Rights Act is not an Amendment and this is not a civil rights issue either. The other party has civil rights too.

I know it's not an amendment. However, they are laws that have been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Deal with it. And yes, the other party has civil rights as well. I'm glad Christians are allowed to sit next to me in a restaurant.

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 05:24 PM
Feel free to post anything racist I have posted on this you phony little **** LMAO

You accused ME of being racist because I believe a business open to the public should not be allowed to refuse service to a black person. I don't feel like researching your posts, so for now I'm content to simply label you a fucking moron and leave it at that.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 05:32 PM
You accused ME of being racist because I believe a business open to the public should not be allowed to refuse service to a black person. I don't feel like researching your posts, so for now I'm content to simply label you a ****ing moron and leave it at that.

That is a compliment coming from a disingenuous shitbag like you~

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:33 PM
I know it's not an amendment. However, they are laws that have been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Deal with it. And yes, the other party has civil rights as well. I'm glad Christians are allowed to sit next to me in a restaurant.

Same with religious freedom—what this country was founded on. Deal with it.

Now link me to laws under the Civil Rights Act being ruled Constitutional—not that I really think the SC is always right, especially after the 1930's. The Civil Rights Act is based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The interstate commerce clause was to create a free trade zone among the states.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 05:34 PM
You accused ME of being racist because I believe a business open to the public should not be allowed to refuse service to a black person. I don't feel like researching your posts, so for now I'm content to simply label you a ****ing moron and leave it at that.

By the way fuck for brains all my posts in this thread are still on the first page LMAO

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:40 PM
Oh and KChiefer, no govt body including the SC is capable of restraining its own powers. They always take more.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 05:41 PM
Same with religious freedom—what this country was founded on. Deal with it.

Now link me to laws under the Civil Rights Act being ruled Constitutional—not that I really think the SC is always right, especially after the 1930's.

Religious freedom allows one to practice their religion, not discriminate. I'm not linking every time the Civil Rights Act has been upheld by the SC. Just know that if using personal belief as an excuse to discriminate would go over well in the SC, the CRA would have been struck down years ago.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:42 PM
Religious freedom allows one to practice their religion, not discriminate.
Says who?

What if that photographer was practicing their religion here? They were. Freedom of conscience is freedom of conscience.

I'm not linking every time the Civil Rights Act has been upheld by the SC. Just know that if using personal belief as an excuse to discriminate would go over well in the SC, the CRA would have been struck down years ago.
I don't need to make an appeal to authority on this as you are. The SC does engage in activism and can make errors.

Everyone discriminates...including you. Life would be insane if we were unable to differentiate and make choices. Religions by their very nature are discriminatory...especially on values and choices made on those values.

The left are fascists when they force a photographer to take the photo of someone. It is a massive violation of the other's rights. Especially when there's probably a large number of photographers who are willing to do the photoshoot. There's no damages here. This is nothing more than an ideological agenda here.

mr. tegu
03-25-2013, 05:45 PM
I will never understand why anyone cares if someone else is gay and if they want to get married. Considering the 50% divorce rate, I would say preserving the sanctity of marriage is off the table. People get way too worked up about things they never had any business knowing about in the first place.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:50 PM
“Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
A corollary of the freedom of speech is to not speak or support a message. So there's more than one violation of fundamental natural rights here.

In the meantime, where are those cases KChiefer? Afterall, you act as if there's so many of them, related to a private person, post 1964.

LiveSteam
03-25-2013, 05:50 PM
I will never understand why anyone cares if someone else is gay and if they want to get married. Considering the 50% divorce rate, I would say preserving the sanctity of marriage is off the table. People get way too worked up about things they never had any business knowing about in the first place.

Would you like to attend a Klan meeting Im hosting ?

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:52 PM
I will never understand why anyone cares if someone else is gay and if they want to get married. Considering the 50% divorce rate, I would say preserving the sanctity of marriage is off the table. People get way too worked up about things they never had any business knowing about in the first place.

This isn't exactly about gay marriage per se though. People should be free to believe as they want about it in a free country. Not having any business knowing about this, doesn't apply when the govt is forcing people to do something against their moral code. Also, those getting worked up about this topic are those who do support gay marriage. For those looking for irony this is it.

mr. tegu
03-25-2013, 05:53 PM
Would you like to attend a Klan meeting Im hosting ?

I am Catholic so that is probably not a good idea.

Brock
03-25-2013, 05:53 PM
I understand what he said and that it sounded like he wanted to reserve his right to refuse service on the basis of, for example, race. I figured the Klan covered several of the likely bases.

I want the right to refuse service to any person for any reason.

LiveSteam
03-25-2013, 05:53 PM
Their will be fish & chips at my rally

mr. tegu
03-25-2013, 05:57 PM
This isn't exactly about gay marriage per se though. People should be free to believe as they want about it in a free country. Also, those getting worked up about this topic are those who do support gay marriage. For those looking for irony this is it.

I was just kind of posting in general. And on this topic specifically, I would say both sides are worked up.

"You can't refuse them because of their sexual orientation!"

"They don't have to serve them because it is against their religion!"

mr. tegu
03-25-2013, 05:57 PM
Their will be fish & chips at my rally

It isn't Friday yet so I don't have to eat fish.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 05:58 PM
I was just kind of posting in general. And on this topic specifically, I would say both sides are worked up.
Exactly.

But it wouldn't be something to get worked up about if the govt just stayed out of the matter.

mr. tegu
03-25-2013, 05:58 PM
I want the right to refuse service to any person for any reason.

You have that right. Just don't be an idiot and say it is because they are black/gay/whatever.

mr. tegu
03-25-2013, 06:00 PM
Exactly.

But it wouldn't be something to get worked up about if the govt just stayed out of the matter.

If only people would stop getting the government involved...

LiveSteam
03-25-2013, 06:01 PM
You have that right. Just don't be an idiot and say it is because they are black/gay/Live steam/whatever.

FYP

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:03 PM
So, what about a web designer?

Let's say this guy owns his own web design business... a GBLT group inquires about his services to build and design a website for them. Can he just refuse or is he also in the same group as the photographer?

Same group as the photographer. The market is capable of working this out. There are plenty of photographers, web designers etc. who would take the gig for a buck regardless of their orientation. Hard to see where the damage is here.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:04 PM
It's silly.

However...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7ASpPxh0FT1xOhPGXohCafcvnQjnbAN5ElrEXCx7qDU_rJAupw9sCnREl

But it's okay to be BIGOTED toward religion—especially Christianity. Oh, the irony.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:06 PM
fine. but until the bigoted assholes disappear in the rapture, some people need protecting. :thumb:

Like big whining babies need protection. People like you treat such groups as babies needing a pateralistic govt.

The market protects them. No govt protection is needed.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:08 PM
He's bumping obscure threads for irrelevant posts. It's annoying.

Tell me, are you afraid of things that go bump in the night as well?:hmmm::p

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:17 PM
The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 06:27 PM
Say a gay couple goes to Disney World and wants their picture taken, but the photographer refuses. Disney then fires the photographer for failing to do their job. Now the photographer sues Disney for discrimination against their religious beliefs. See the problem here?

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 06:29 PM
I am Catholic so that is probably not a good idea.

Lol the klan is so desperate if you are white you could get in. I am guessing they are taking Jews at this point LMAO I think inner breeding has almost killed them off~

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:30 PM
Say a gay couple goes to Disney World and wants their picture taken, but the photographer refuses. Disney then fires the photographer for failing to do their job. Now the photographer sues Disney for discrimination against their religious beliefs. See the problem here?

They don't have to work for Disney if they don't like it.

Disney has a right to fire them for not doing their job too. There is no right to a job.

This is the conundrum such laws have created. The Constitution didn't create this problem. You progs did.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 06:32 PM
Say a gay couple goes to Disney World and wants their picture taken, but the photographer refuses. Disney then fires the photographer for failing to do their job. Now the photographer sues Disney for discrimination against their religious beliefs. See the problem here?

No because the employee did not perform the task in his or her job description. He or she does not set policy for Disney. They agreed to follow the policy when accepting the job~

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:35 PM
No because the employee did not perform the task in his or her job description. He or she does not set policy for Disney. They agreed to follow the policy when accepting the job~

A good way of putting it.:thumb:

cosmo20002
03-25-2013, 06:39 PM
Lol the klan is so desperate if you are white you could get in. I am guessing they are taking Jews at this point LMAO I think inner breeding has almost killed them off~

On this topic, I do not doubt that you know what you are talking about.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 06:39 PM
They don't have to work for Disney if they don't like it.

Disney has a right to fire them for not doing their job too. There is no right to a job.

This is the conundrum such laws have created. The Constitution didn't create this problem. You progs did.

There are worker rights.

If by "prog," you mean people that understand we don't live in the 1800s, yes you are correct.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 06:42 PM
No because the employee did not perform the task in his or her job description. He or she does not set policy for Disney. They agreed to follow the policy when accepting the job~

And when you open a public accommodation business, you agree to abide by the law which is what this photography group did, and the law says you cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:43 PM
There are worker rights.
Which are also not fundamental natural rights but positivist rights.

If by "prog," you mean people that understand we don't live in the 1800s, yes you are correct.

No progs, who grow state power in a fascist manner because they ignore a fundamental right to private contract and property. These things were still protected even in the 19th century and early 20th before the intellectuals changed from those of the Enlightenment to those steeped in Marx.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 06:47 PM
And when you open a public accommodation business, you agree to abide by the law which is what this photography group did, and the law says you cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation.

Yet, the Supreme Law, trumps your positivist laws and it protects religion and free speech. I don't see any worker's rights in the Constition's Bill of Rights. That idea came from Marx.

BTW what laws protect sexual orientation? By that I mean nationally, as you seem to imply.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2013, 06:51 PM
And when you open a public accommodation business, you agree to abide by the law which is what this photography group did, and the law says you cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation.

See posts 116 and 126 as to how I feel about the issue. I do not disagree that refusing service to someone for color,if they are gay or pray to a different invisible man. I do think the government should stay the **** out of private businesses and our private life. If you receive funding from them they have the right to stick their nose in, otherwise the can **** clear off~

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 07:00 PM
See posts 116 and 126 as to how I feel about the issue. I do not disagree that refusing service to someone for color,if they are gay or pray to a different invisible man. I do think the government should stay the **** out of private businesses and our private life. If you receive funding from them they have the right to stick their nose in, otherwise the can **** clear off~

I agree with this too. But often, most of that money is not valid either. It's a means of control.

BigRedChief
03-25-2013, 07:01 PM
I want the right to refuse service to any person for any reason.wellll as long as you are not open to the public, find and dandy.

You server the public, the SCOTUS says the constitution dictates that you can't discriminate based on race, creed or religion. It's clear that America feels that discrimination of gay's just because their gay is wrong. I think the constitution and the SCOTUS interpretation will say the same. The tide of history has decided. Done deal. Print em.

KChiefer
03-25-2013, 07:02 PM
BTW what laws protect sexual orientation? By that I mean nationally, as you seem to imply.

There isn't...yet. But they're protected in New Mexico. Deal with it.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 07:04 PM
There isn't...yet. But they're protected in New Mexico. Deal with it.

I gave my position on this. Deal with it.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 07:06 PM
wellll as long as you are not open to the public, find and dandy.

You server the public, the SCOTUS says the constitution dictates that you can't discriminate based on race, creed or religion. It's clear that America feels that discrimination of gay's just because their gay is wrong. I think the constitution and the SCOTUS interpretation will say the same. The tide of history has decided. Done deal. Print em.

You do not speak for America. Not everyone agrees and most don't even understand the Constitution or have ever read it. They respond with their gut on issues like this.

As for "public" the definition of that has spread too far.

Brock
03-25-2013, 07:08 PM
wellll as long as you are not open to the public, find and dandy.

You server the public, the SCOTUS says the constitution dictates that you can't discriminate based on race, creed or religion. It's clear that America feels that discrimination of gay's just because their gay is wrong. I think the constitution and the SCOTUS interpretation will say the same. The tide of history has decided. Done deal. Print em.

This is stupid because I can simply say I refused service because they had bad breath. I am just saying I shouldn'thave to lie to avoid a lawsuit because I choose not to do business with _______________.

BigRedChief
03-25-2013, 07:11 PM
You do not speak for America. Not everyone agrees and most don't even understand the Constitution or have ever read it. They respond with their gut on issues like this.I understand the principle of its my business, I get to do whatever the fuck I want. I get to decide who I do business with and who I tell to GTFO. I understand that idea and that "gut feeling" that this is mine and fuck you and your rules.

However, I don't want my country to sign off on racism. That anyone can say to a public customer or put up a sign saying GTOFO n-word. And the bottom line is that most Americans and the SCOTUS agree that ensuring the minority's constitutional right strump your right to run your business as you see fit.

BigRedChief
03-25-2013, 07:13 PM
This is stupid because I can simply say I refused service because they had bad breath. I am just saying I shouldn'thave to lie to avoid a lawsuit because I choose not to do business with _______________.And that would be perfectly legit and legal, But, if its found out that only black people have "bad breath" and are refused service, thats the line thats crossed.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 07:16 PM
I understand the principle of its my business, I get to do whatever the **** I want. I get to decide who I do business with and who I tell to GTFO. I understand that idea and that "gut feeling" that this is mine and **** you and your rules.
What's with all the swearing?

However, I don't want my country to sign off on racism. That anyone can say to a public customer or put up a sign saying GTOFO n-word. And the bottom line is that most Americans and the SCOTUS agree that ensuring the minority's constitutional right strump your right to run your business as you see fit.

Here's where you misunderstand this issue—at least from the limited govt pov that many on the right have. Signs used to be put up as shown below before. How did it end? It ended by the market when the same businesses couldn't find enough people for labor. Somehow, without the federal govt's interference the practice of discriminating against the Irish for jobs ended. The market is powerful because it punishes such businesses. This has nothing to do with your "country" signing off on racism. As for the south, regarding lunch counters, it was state govts that made those rules when there were private businesses who wanted to integrate. You read too much PC history.


http://s4.hubimg.com/u/234683_f496.jpg

BigRedChief
03-25-2013, 07:23 PM
What's with all the swearing?



Here's where you misunderstand this issue: Signs used to be put up like this before. How did it end? It ended by the market when the same businesses couldn't find enough labor. Somehow, without the federal govt's interference the practice of discriminating against the Irish for jobs ended. The market is powerful because it punishes such businesses. This has nothing to do with your "country" signing off on racism. As for the south, regarding lunch counters, it was state govts that made those rules when there were private businesses who wanted to integrate. You read too much PC history.


http://s4.hubimg.com/u/234683_f496.jpgYou have a strong opinion of this issue. I'm not saying your wrong or you are FOS. It's a legitimate opinion. But, so is mine.

It's a difficult issue. There is just no solution that doesn't end up with someone having their rights curtailed.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 07:24 PM
You have a strong opinion of this issue. I'm not saying your wrong or you are FOS. It's a legitimate opinion. But, so is mine.

It's a difficult issue. There is just no solution that doesn't end up with someone having their rights curtailed.

Yeah, well aside from the race issue, this is not in the same category of thing.
The discrimination laws are based on the idea of animus toward a group—not due to religion teaching something as immoral.
There's just no damages here when another photography studio will accomodate these folks. So there's no violation of any "rights."
Saying THAT isn't valid at all. This is what BIG govt does. It divides and creates more controversy.

BigRedChief
03-25-2013, 07:31 PM
Yeah, well aside from the race issue, this is not in the same category of thing.
The discrimination laws are based on the idea of animus toward a group—not due to religion teaching something as immoral.I believe that discriminating against someone only because of their sexual orientation is wrong and is constitutionally protected. I think that the SCOTUS will agree with my opinion this week.

Dave Lane
03-25-2013, 07:34 PM
Yes and any idiot who tried that would not be in business very long. If I pulled up to a business that refused to serve someone based on color I would most likely give them the finger and move on. I believe the government needs to get the **** out of our lives. If funded by the government than they should enforce rules. Schools, military, government jobs I have no problem with their input. As far as private owned businesses and personal issues as far as who can get married or what someone eats they can **** clear off~

As everyone knows there are easy ways to skirt this issue and it gets done a lot. Just don't tell people its because you are gay or black or whatever and then do what you want.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2013, 07:45 PM
I believe that discriminating against someone only because of their sexual orientation is wrong and is constitutionally protected. I think that the SCOTUS will agree with my opinion this week.

I got it. But this is about someone no wanting to take a picture of a gay marriage. Not gay marriage. You're changing the subject.

Other than that, I could give a rats ass what some judicial activist judge claims when they pass legislation from the bench.

patteeu
03-25-2013, 09:15 PM
This isn't really a case of discrimination against people because of their sexual preference. It's discrimination on the basis of elective activity (marrying someone of the same sex), which distinguishes it from racial discrimination.

KChiefer
03-26-2013, 03:11 AM
The photographer isn't marrying them.

How about if a mixed raced couple walks into my studio with their child. I tell them that my personal beliefs are that mixed race breeding is wrong, therefore I refuse to photograph their family because it promotes something I don't personally believe is moral. That is however, discrimination.

As an earlier post said, people can veil their bigotry in religion but it is still bigotry.

People can make up all kinds of BS claiming "religion" to avoid having to play by the rules. It's basically another form Sovereign Citizen psychobabble.

mcan
03-26-2013, 05:22 AM
Have you ever heard of conflicting rights issues?

Freedom of religion trumps this alleged right of gays to demand an individual take their picture. That's fascism.
Getting their picture taken by certain person or member of a group is not a natural right.



Well, I can't say that a purely libertarian system is a horrible idea. It's just not what we have... And I think what we have is probably better. The problem with allowing discrimination in public business (discounting any ethical argument) is that you never know when you're going to find yourself on the losing end of the tyranny of the majority. A purely libertarian system might be more efficient, but you start to lose the benefits of having a society in the first place. And one of those benefits is the avoidance of such tyranny. It's all too easy to espouse ideas that nurture liberty and freedom to refuse service to anybody you want, while your particular race/creed is in favor. But no matter what you believe, you can find a time and place in the history books that hated your shit for no good reason.

Forgetting that, and calling that freedom seems short sighted to me. REAL freedom is large groups of people, who by social contract, have decided to shelve their differences and get out of the harsh state of nature. That process of shelving our differences means, we don't get to murder each other and we don't get to cheat each other, and we don't get to ostracize a group through tyranny of the majority. All should be enforced by law. That's the whole POINT of society. Let that go, and what do you have left? Might as well go back to the cave.

mcan
03-26-2013, 05:30 AM
This isn't really a case of discrimination against people because of their sexual preference. It's discrimination on the basis of elective activity (marrying someone of the same sex), which distinguishes it from racial discrimination.

From an ethical standpoint, I see that. But I don't think this is a purely ethical argument. (I do think racists and homophobes are engaging in unethical behavior but that's NOT why I think it should be illegal to discriminate).

I think certain aspects of society need to be protected, by rule of law. In order for society to work at all, we NEED to avoid violence, cheating, and tyranny of the majority. Without laws making these practices illegal, you no longer have a BASE with which you can have a free society.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2013, 08:25 AM
Well, I can't say that a purely libertarian system is a horrible idea. It's just not what we have... And I think what we have is probably better. The problem with allowing discrimination in public business (discounting any ethical argument) is that you never know when you're going to find yourself on the losing end of the tyranny of the majority.
The will of the majority point applies when that majority uses govt to stomp on rights more.
So we have fundamental natural rights that are protected.


A purely libertarian system might be more efficient, but you start to lose the benefits of having a society in the first place. And one of those benefits is the avoidance of such tyranny. It's all too easy to espouse ideas that nurture liberty and freedom to refuse service to anybody you want, while your particular race/creed is in favor.
This is a collectivist argument when you use society in this manner. The market is capable of, and has, of ending such acts by private businesses. These days, though, the govt is taking things too far and keeps adding to the list of victims. Silly.

But no matter what you believe, you can find a time and place in the history books that hated your shit for no good reason.
Same goes for you and your progressive egalitarian shit for no good reason other than because you have labeled it a good reason.

It's not a matter of "belief" with me, it's from studying past episodes of discrimination some written by black men such as economics Tom Sowell's books including, Ethnic America and Walter Williams. Perhaps, you need to open your mind to new information instead of what the statists feed us.

Forgetting that, and calling that freedom seems short sighted to me. REAL freedom is large groups of people, who by social contract, have decided to shelve their differences and get out of the harsh state of nature. That process of shelving our differences means, we don't get to murder each other and we don't get to cheat each other, and we don't get to ostracize a group through tyranny of the majority. All should be enforced by law. That's the whole POINT of society. Let that go, and what do you have left? Might as well go back to the cave.

There really is no social contract. Govt is force. That's a left-progressive-socialist idea stemming from Rousseau. It's bogus. Individuals have rights too. In fact the Constitution protects property rights but since the Progressive Era, influenced by Marx, those have been steadily eroding.

aturnis
03-26-2013, 09:42 AM
:spock:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/court-says-gay-rights-trump-religious-rights.html

Awesome.

Prison Bitch
03-26-2013, 09:47 AM
Your link was about requiring a facility that is rented out to the public to be accesible to all people, with discrimination not allowed based on race, religion or gayness. It did not require a church to perform a gay marriage in any way.

If a church wants to get into the facility-rental business, it can't discriminate. If it wants to discriminate, it can stay in the religion business. That sounds reasonable to me.


This is exactly what we're talking about, thank you for proving the entire point. You want the government to enforce Churches to "not discriminate". Which is just another way of saying you don't want them to be able to practice their beliefs.



Why can't you at least be honest about your intentions?

cosmo20002
03-26-2013, 10:39 AM
This is exactly what we're talking about, thank you for proving the entire point. You want the government to enforce Churches to "not discriminate". Which is just another way of saying you don't want them to be able to practice their beliefs.



Why can't you at least be honest about your intentions?

The church gets to practice its beliefs WHEN IT IS ACTING AS A ****ING CHURCH. When it is acting as a facility-rental business, it has to join the real world. And even then, they aren't forced to officiate a wedding or perform any other religous function, nor should they be.

FishingRod
03-26-2013, 10:49 AM
The photographer isn't marrying them.

How about if a mixed raced couple walks into my studio with their child. I tell them that my personal beliefs are that mixed race breeding is wrong, therefore I refuse to photograph their family because it promotes something I don't personally believe is moral. That is however, discrimination.

As an earlier post said, people can veil their bigotry in religion but it is still bigotry.

People can make up all kinds of BS claiming "religion" to avoid having to play by the rules. It's basically another form Sovereign Citizen psychobabble.

It should not be against the law to be a jackass.

Prison Bitch
03-26-2013, 11:07 AM
The church gets to practice its beliefs WHEN IT IS ACTING AS A ****ING CHURCH. When it is acting as a facility-rental business, it has to join the real world. And even then, they aren't forced to officiate a wedding or perform any other religous function, nor should they be.

Again: you want to force your beliefs (which the churches obviously disagree with strongly) onto them. You think YOUR way, YOUR beliefs, are superior to them and dammit you just want Uncle Sam in there forcing people to accept your viewpoints.



That makes you a nuisance in my book.

cosmo20002
03-26-2013, 12:02 PM
Again: you want to force your beliefs (which the churches obviously disagree with strongly) onto them. You think YOUR way, YOUR beliefs, are superior to them and dammit you just want Uncle Sam in there forcing people to accept your viewpoints.



That makes you a nuisance in my book.

You're wrong because we're not talking about a church. We're talking about a facility-rental business.

go bowe
03-27-2013, 08:48 PM
You're wrong because we're not talking about a church. We're talking about a facility-rental business.

gee cozmo, i didn't know that the united states government and the democratic party are all based on YOUR beliefs...

those rascals want to impose YOUR beliefs on poor unsuspecting republicans, because you want to...

impressive...

of course many of your beliefs appear to be law already, but that shouldn't matter...

Prison Bitch
03-27-2013, 09:04 PM
Cosmo believes in personal freedom and choice. Except for the multitiude of issues where he wants to force his views on people who disagree. Hard to follow, I know.