Mixed Race Couple Denied Wedding Venue

The owners of a Mississippi wedding venue that reneged on renting to an engaged couple after finding out the groom and bride-to be were from two different races says hosting an interracial marriage would violate their Christian beliefs.

Click to expand...

'First of all, we don't do gay weddings or mixed race, because of our Christian race... I mean our Christian beliefs,' the woman says on camera.

'OK, we're Christians as well,' Welch replies. 'So... what in the Bible tells you that -'

'Well, I don't want to argue my faith,' the woman interjects. 'We just don't participate. We just choose not to.'

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

Shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Anne P. Newman, an African American woman, was refused service at a restaurant named Piggie Park, part of a South Carolina chain owned by avowed segregationist Maurice Bessinger. There followed a class-action lawsuit, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises.

Bessinger argued, among other things, that the Civil Rights Act “contravenes the will of God” and thereby violated his constitutional right to religious freedom.

When the dust finally cleared — some aspects of the case were argued all the way to the Supreme Court — the plaintiff had scored a victory that helped the cause of civil rights on more than one front. First, the case helped to establish the concept that religious views do not trump civil rights. It also affirmed that successful plaintiffs in civil rights cases may generally recover attorneys’ fees, a decision that discouraged defendants from dragging out litigation as a way to forestall the act’s implementation.

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

At some point anyone is bound to find someone who is an asshole. That's kind of the way the world works. When you find that asshole you've got a couple of choices. The first choice would be to ignore the asshole and walk away. The second choice would be to climb on up on your high horse and start poking the asshole with a stick. Doing things the first way is generally the best option if you have a project you want to get done. Doing things the second way is generally the best option if you want to give the asshole attention tha they don't deserve and, possibly, make yourself out to be just as much an asshole as the other asshole.

In this case the wedding group knew that they had contacted an asshole BEFORE they got too deep in the planning. That's much better than if they found out AFTER they made plans and started laying out money. That gives them the opportunity to find a different venue that will have less assholes running things.

Click to expand...

Lisa said:

Religious belief has always been the last resort of the bigot/racist who are trying to hide their beliefs behind the religious protections of the First Amendment. I think that we can predict where this will go by reading the Newman v. Piggy park decision where a bigot BBQ joint claimed that his religious beliefs opposing race mixing said that he didn't have to serve blacks and interracial people. The SCOTUS was not amused when they ruled against him in an unanimous decision.

Click to expand...

One section of the act, Title II, was specifically intended to grant African-Americans full access to public facilities such as hotels, restaurants, and public recreation areas. On the same day, the Supreme Court heard challenges to Title II from a motel owner and from Ollie McClung. Both claimed that the federal government had no right to impose any regulations on small, private businesses. Both ultimately lost.

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

At some point anyone is bound to find someone who is an asshole. That's kind of the way the world works. When you find that asshole you've got a couple of choices. The first choice would be to ignore the asshole and walk away. The second choice would be to climb on up on your high horse and start poking the asshole with a stick. Doing things the first way is generally the best option if you have a project you want to get done. Doing things the second way is generally the best option if you want to give the asshole attention tha they don't deserve and, possibly, make yourself out to be just as much an asshole as the other asshole.

In this case the wedding group knew that they had contacted an asshole BEFORE they got too deep in the planning. That's much better than if they found out AFTER they made plans and started laying out money. That gives them the opportunity to find a different venue that will have less assholes running things.

Click to expand...

Lisa said:

Religious belief has always been the last resort of the bigot/racist who are trying to hide their beliefs behind the religious protections of the First Amendment. I think that we can predict where this will go by reading the Newman v. Piggy park decision where a bigot BBQ joint claimed that his religious beliefs opposing race mixing said that he didn't have to serve blacks and interracial people. The SCOTUS was not amused when they ruled against him in an unanimous decision.

Click to expand...

Jetboogieman said:

Or in your case, you could elect the asshole president.

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

marke said:

Some old American ideas are slow to change. Fifty years ago schools like Wellesley and Bob Jones were discriminating against certain associations between whites and blacks. Schools, like other entities, have changed, but not all at once and not even all inclusive.

Click to expand...

Jetboogieman said:

Or in your case, you could elect the asshole president.

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

I never cease to be amazed at how Trump ends up in every single conversation.

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

At some point anyone is bound to find someone who is an asshole. That's kind of the way the world works. When you find that asshole you've got a couple of choices. The first choice would be to ignore the asshole and walk away. The second choice would be to climb on up on your high horse and start poking the asshole with a stick. Doing things the first way is generally the best option if you have a project you want to get done. Doing things the second way is generally the best option if you want to give the asshole attention tha they don't deserve and, possibly, make yourself out to be just as much an asshole as the other asshole.

In this case the wedding group knew that they had contacted an asshole BEFORE they got too deep in the planning. That's much better than if they found out AFTER they made plans and started laying out money. That gives them the opportunity to find a different venue that will have less assholes running things.

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Religion + Mississippi =

Mississippi wedding venue refuses to rent to engaged interracial couple because the owners say 'it's against our Christian beliefs to do mixed race and gay weddings'

Pretty much a predictable outcome after the "Cakeshop v. Colorado" decision.

So, what gives in this case? Well, the couple are a man and a woman. But, one is white and the other black.



Yes, they actually said that. And, she said this too.



So...translation: "I want to discriminate based on scripture, but I will not defend my position or point to where in the scripture it says I need to discriminate against you."

:doh

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

At some point anyone is bound to find someone who is an asshole. That's kind of the way the world works. When you find that asshole you've got a couple of choices. The first choice would be to ignore the asshole and walk away. The second choice would be to climb on up on your high horse and start poking the asshole with a stick. Doing things the first way is generally the best option if you have a project you want to get done. Doing things the second way is generally the best option if you want to give the asshole attention tha they don't deserve and, possibly, make yourself out to be just as much an asshole as the other asshole.

In this case the wedding group knew that they had contacted an asshole BEFORE they got too deep in the planning. That's much better than if they found out AFTER they made plans and started laying out money. That gives them the opportunity to find a different venue that will have less assholes running things.

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

I never cease to be amazed at how Trump ends up in every single conversation.

Click to expand...

The leader of the American Nazi Party has said the election of Donald Trump as president would present “a real opportunity for people like white nationalists”

Click to expand...

AmNat said:

Part of living in a free society is accepting that people might have different opinions than you do about things. The simple fact of the matter is that these people are perfectly capable of finding a different venue.

Click to expand...

charliebrown said:

There is no correlation between religious beliefs and intellectual abilities. You just found an example of an ignorance. If you open you eyes, you will see it plastered all over the place.

Click to expand...

Catching up on my Xmas readings, I dived into the recent meta-analysis on the negative correlation between IQ and religious beliefs, which, at least in my case, makes sense: I am highly religious but not very intelligent… or is it the other way around? [Sorry, I’m not smart enough to figure it out].

The paper has very few methodological weaknesses, but as we know correlation does not mean causation – though correlations do have causes.

The key question, then, is why religious people are generally less intelligent. And the authors did not shy away from the answer, offering three compelling explanations:

(1) Intelligent people are generally more analytical and data-driven; formal religions are the antithesis: they are empirically fluffy and their claims are often in direct contradiction with scientific evidence, unless they are interpreted metaphorically – but maybe intelligent people are not that keen on metaphor. Another way of putting it is that people with a high IQ are more likely to have faith in science, which isn’t religion’s best friends (yes, yes, I do know about Einstein’s quotes).

(2) Intelligent people are less likely to conform, and, in most societies, religiosity is closer to the norm than atheism is. Although this interpretation is based on extrapolation, it still makes sense: first, smarter people tend to be less gullible; second, in most societies religious people outnumber atheists and agnostics - though global levels of religiosity have been declining, and there is substantial cultural variability in religiosity levels.

(3) Intelligence and religiosity are “functionally equivalent”, which means that they fulfil the same psychological role. Although this intriguing argument contradicts points 1 and 2, it deserves serious consideration. Humans will always crave meaning. Religion – like science and logical reasoning – provides them with a comprehensive framework or system to make meaningful interpretations of the world. At times, religion and science are in conflict; but they can also act in concert, complementing each other to answer non-falsifiable and falsifiable questions, respectively. The authors conclude that some people satisfy their desire to find meaning via religion, whereas others do so via logical, analytical, or scientific reasoning – and IQ predicts whether you are in the former or latter group.

It is noteworthy that these three explanations assume that IQ influences religiosity rather than vice-versa, which seems plausible: IQ levels remain very stable after childhood, whereas religiosity levels keep fluctuating – childhood IQ predicts adult IQ, but childhood religiosity is a very poor predictor of adult religiosity.

Click to expand...