Gene Frenkle Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 What if I (a non-believer) refused to accommodate them. Would be spending as much time and effort? Probably not. Maybe, maybe not. What does it matter? I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. Your right to a gay marriage ceremony should not trump the constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion. The "patrons" in question had, I'm sure, plenty of choices for locations to hold their ceremony. That they decided to call this place, record the call, and then report their situation to the "proper authorities" speaks volumes about how this all came about. The free enterprise system works both ways. There are plenty of people at my workplace who will not patronize Chick-Fil-A . . .Choices, freedom, etc . . .that's what it's about. Not a fascist-style drumbeat to which we all must march. That's the part that you don't get. What seems to be confusing you are the legal rights of the patron vs. the legal rights of the proprietor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 ...dime a dozen? ...target audience for ChristianFarmerMingle.com? ... whole lot better at their job than atheist farmers? I resent a few things. ...not too many farmers out there. ...there is only ChristianMingle.com and FarmersOnly.com; both of which are the antithesis of what they are actually supposed to stand for; Christian Mingle is a great place to get laid, FarmersOnly is full of wanna-be's. ...atheists can do it just as good. What if I (a non-believer) refused to accommodate them. Would be spending as much time and effort? Probably not. If this was a black couple would we hear anything? Unlikely. If this was a Muslim couple? Unlikely. If this was an interracial couple? Unlikely. We hear about this because: A) It's NY and NY is !@#$ed up. B) GLAAD hasn't been getting any headlines. We do not hear about actual travesties against homosexuals because: A) There is no Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, or Eric Holder for the community. B) Homophobia is bigger then racism and sexism. Combined. C) Because no matter what Gene, Lybobo, Gatorboy or [insert here] say, they are wrong. Maybe, maybe not. What does it matter? I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. What seems to be confusing you are the legal rights of the patron vs. the legal rights of the proprietor. I am an Atheist Libertarian 33 year old farmer living in the Bible belt full of conservative Republicans/Southern Democrats/DixieCrats where the average age of the farmer is now 60 1/2 years old. I am not a bigot. I won't turn away a dollar for very much, but if two fat ugly devoted Christian men or women wanted to pay me to come on my farm and have sex with my cattle I might make them pay a lot more then if they were two smoking hot Lesbians atheists. I might even let them do it for free. I guess I am a bigot. But, you're a spigot. Of bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Maybe, maybe not. What does it matter? I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. That's pretty funny because your bigotry is showing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 That's pretty funny because your bigotry is showing too. His always does, he just projects it on those views that he doesn't like .....................or truly understand. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Maybe, maybe not. What does it matter? I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. What seems to be confusing you are the legal rights of the patron vs. the legal rights of the proprietor. you may be having fun, but you either missed one of my questions to you (in post #15) or you're cherry-picking what you're replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 from the Washington Times linked article: “Liberty Ridge Farm … has employed gay people and has conducted events for same-sex couples,” Mr. Trainor said. “The Giffords’ objection was to hosting and participating in the wedding ceremony itself and not to providing service in general to lesbians.” it sounds to me like the Giffords are affording this couple the same access & opportunity they've always provided for couples, straight or gay. does the law say that they must participate in the ceremony as well? also from the article: “The fact that the Giffords also reside at Gifford Barn,” the decision says, “does not render it private.” so their residence is a public place? if you have a really nice back yard and someone, say your niece, held her wedding there in the past, does that mean that if someone else wants to do the same that you are legally obligated to consent or pay fines and compensatory damages if you refuse? By special request...answered several times in several ways... They are running a public business. They selectively denied services they offer to the public based on sexual orientation. How is this so difficult to understand? How many different ways do you all need to be told the same thing before it sinks in? Seriously. I am no longer taking requests from page 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 A person owning and living in a duplex can discriminate all they want and the hell with fair housing laws. A 70 year old couple can say that they don't want to rent to the equivalent of a frat house. In fact Gene, I am legally able to tell you I'm not going to rent you the room above my garage only because you are so Godless. technically if the godless Gene met your rental criteria in the rental process you have established, you would have to rent to him. We often have people we prefer, but often rent to people who come in earlier and meet our criteria. This is probably different state to state, but Colorado was very pro tenant. You could just tell Gene he didn't meet criteria, or someone meeting the criteria got their application in first, but fair housing doesn't let you pick and choose... If they ever deemed to pursue you for discrimination, you may be liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 technically if the godless Gene met your rental criteria in the rental process you have established, you would have to rent to him. We often have people we prefer, but often rent to people who come in earlier and meet our criteria. This is probably different state to state, but Colorado was very pro tenant. You could just tell Gene he didn't meet criteria, or someone meeting the criteria got their application in first, but fair housing doesn't let you pick and choose... If they ever deemed to pursue you for discrimination, you may be liable. Now if I were 3rdnlng, I'd come back with the same tired argument with a slightly different phrasing. Or maybe I'd ask you to look up the nonexistent law for me because Google is hard. Thankfully I'm not. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 technically if the godless Gene met your rental criteria in the rental process you have established, you would have to rent to him. We often have people we prefer, but often rent to people who come in earlier and meet our criteria. This is probably different state to state, but Colorado was very pro tenant. You could just tell Gene he didn't meet criteria, or someone meeting the criteria got their application in first, but fair housing doesn't let you pick and choose... If they ever deemed to pursue you for discrimination, you may be liable. What does the law say about renting to someone when it is a duplex that you own? Now if I were 3rdnlng, I'd come back with the same tired argument with a slightly different phrasing. Or maybe I'd ask you to look up the nonexistent law for me because Google is hard. Thankfully I'm not. Thanks for the clarification. What does it take to get through your head? They aren't discriminating because of sexual orientation. They didn't want to personally join in the ceremony and/or rent them part of their home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 By special request...answered several times in several ways... They are running a public business. They selectively denied services they offer to the public based on sexual orientation. How is this so difficult to understand? How many different ways do you all need to be told the same thing before it sinks in? Seriously. I am no longer taking requests from page 1. Incorrect. They are running a private business. This is the second time you've made this assertion. I'm beginning to believe that you either don't understand the difference between private and public sector, or that you wish to obsfucate the difference. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Maybe, maybe not. What does it matter? I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. What seems to be confusing you are the legal rights of the patron vs. the legal rights of the proprietor. Oh, I'm far from confused. You simply refuse to address any of my points with a meaningful and insightful answer as to why the PC Gay Marriage right trumps freedom of religion. I submit that no discrimination took place because they (the couple) were not denied services outright. In return, I'm told that I'm confused and that my arguments are, your word: retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Oh, I'm far from confused. You simply refuse to address any of my points with a meaningful and insightful answer as to why the PC Gay Marriage right trumps freedom of religion. I submit that no discrimination took place because they (the couple) were not denied services outright. In return, I'm told that I'm confused and that my arguments are, your word: retarded. how do Catholic and Hebrew schools operate legally? At least where I grew up the girls had honor codes and agreed to follow their respective religions and I knew the codes well because I am going to pretend that I was helping them break those codes in the back of a 93 Taurus. So now how can that be legal??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) So now how can that be legal??? I don't think it is? My children go to Catholic schools and they don't force the non-Catholics to take relgious instruction. Not being part of the parish, they pay more... The non-parishoner rate. I can't see how they could force these two to participate in the ceremony? Edited August 27, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. How fun it must be to call people bigots exclusively because they don't agree with your way of thinking. Why, based on current events, that makes you downright presidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 So Mr. Frenkle, let's look at this another way. Pretend that you are an atheist wedding planner and up to today you had only organized atheists weddings. A highly devout Muslim couple (substitute Christian, Hindu or whatever) wanted you to not only organize a wedding for them along very specific religious criteria but also wanted you to participate in the ceremony. Watcha gonna do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I'm beginning to believe that you either don't understand the difference between private and public sector, or that you wish to obsfucate the difference. this pretty much sums it up, right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Incorrect. They are running a private business. This is the second time you've made this assertion. I'm beginning to believe that you either don't understand the difference between private and public sector, or that you wish to obsfucate the difference. Which is it? I don't understand the difference? I think you have that backwards. The ruling specifically states that they are running a public business, mainly because they advertise publicly. You may disagree, but the law is not on your side. What does the law say about renting to someone when it is a duplex that you own? What does it take to get through your head? They aren't discriminating because of sexual orientation. They didn't want to personally join in the ceremony and/or rent them part of their home. Their lawyer also specifically states their objection to allowing the ceremony is based in on their religious beliefs. So you're just plain wrong. So Mr. Frenkle, let's look at this another way. Pretend that you are an atheist wedding planner and up to today you had only organized atheists weddings. A highly devout Muslim couple (substitute Christian, Hindu or whatever) wanted you to not only organize a wedding for them along very specific religious criteria but also wanted you to participate in the ceremony. Watcha gonna do? I wouldn't give a crap because I believe that people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever the hell they like as long as they're not hurting anyone else (physically or otherwise). Personally, I'd happily take their money and privately laugh my arse off right through the ceremony and all the way to the bank. Of course, I don't have an eternal soul to worry about. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I don't understand the difference? I think you have that backwards. The ruling specifically states that they are running a public business, mainly because they advertise publicly. You may disagree, but the law is not on your side. Their lawyer also specifically states their objection to allowing the ceremony is based in on their religious beliefs. So you're just plain wrong. I wouldn't give a crap because I believe that people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever the hell they like as long as they're not hurting anyone else (physically or otherwise). Personally, I'd happily take their money and privately laugh my arse off right through the ceremony and all the way to the bank. Of course, I don't have an eternal soul to worry about. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice. That is unless of course the person that wants to do whatever the hell they want is religious. Nah, you're not a bigot at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 By special request...answered several times in several ways... They are running a public business. They selectively denied services they offer to the public based on sexual orientation. How is this so difficult to understand? How many different ways do you all need to be told the same thing before it sinks in? Seriously. I am no longer taking requests from page 1. They're running a private business. They should be allowed to selectively deny services, since those services aren't vital (e.g. they're not running a private ambulance service.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I don't understand the difference? I think you have that backwards. The ruling specifically states that they are running a public business, mainly because they advertise publicly. You may disagree, but the law is not on your side. The fact that an activist court decided to co-opt the meaning of words, and then nullify their prior meaning does not add any weight to your argument. It does not speak, in any way, to the justness of the law; and instead confers arbitrary powers on the courts. The fact that you seem to enjoy living in an Orwellian distopia in which up legally means down doesn't change anything. You're still advocating for a world in which voluntary exchange between two willing interested parties has been replaced by the sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts