Mixed Race Couple Denied Wedding Venue

[Mr Person]

Racists: no, we won't serve you because mixed-race weddings are anti-racist, but we're cowards so we'll hide behind Christianity.

Trump supporters: Psssh. It's racism. Who cares? Just some hurt feelings some of those those you-know-whats are complaining about, wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?







Maybe Hillary's quote was spot on.

 

[SoCal]

It is crap like this that makes me want to make a church earn any tax breaks they may get.

I have a question. Is it known whether or not they do weddings for anyone but white people? Or is it really the interracial thing?

They might not even have a problem with marrying a black couple. Many racists consider whites in a mixed race marriage worst than blacks, they're looked on as, 'race traders'...

 

[AProudLefty]

You think this couple is not going to get married because they can't do it in this place?

That's right! They cannot get married anywhere because of this place!

 

[Lisa]

They might not even have a problem with marrying a black couple. Many racists consider whites in a mixed-race marriage worst than blacks, they're looked on as, 'race traitors'...

They claim that there is a passage of the bible that opposes race-mixing. That also applies to interfaith marriage.

Interracial marriage in the Bible

What about interracial marriage? Deuteronomy 7:1-6 tells the Israelites to destroy all the inhabitants of the Canaan land and not to intermarry with them because they would "turn your sons away from following Me, that they may serve other gods." The same key concern of 2 Corinthians 6:14 is again expressed here.

Moses' wife was of another race and in Numbers 12:1-15 Aaron and Miriam were punished for criticizing this interracial marriage. The book of Ruth tells a delightful story of a foreigner who became part of the lineage of Christ. The harlot, Rahab, also of another nation, is included in the lineage of Christ as recorded in Matthew 1. Colossians 3:11 makes it clear that from God's perspective all are one in Christ.

 

[JasperL]

You talk about discriminatory acts but it's really just a small subset of such acts that you're concerned with.

If the business proprietor had declined the engagement because the customer was ugly or because they were nudists or because they were nazis it wouldn't be a problem for the law or, presumably, for either of you. The only factor that makes this decision unconscionable is the fact that it involved race. You guys are totally selective in what you choose to be outraged about and manage to personalize the issue instead of look at it rationally.

We have a 200 year national history of slavery, then white supremacy and Jim Crow, and laws making interracial marriage illegal for 200 years to advance the cause of white supremacy that only ended when the SC struck them down. We also have a long national history of religious bigotry. So, yeah, there's a reason those characteristics are targeted, and it's because of the damage/harm that history inflicted on the groups discriminated against.

I've never heard of a proprietor turning down a wedding because one is ugly, and nudists and/or Nazis aren't good comparisons because those involve ACTS versus characteristics like being black at birth or being a Jew.

Bottom line is you're demanding peace and goodwill extended to those committing acts of discrimination against others, and believe calling out acts of discrimination is somehow illegitimate. It's not enough that they be allowed to be bigots and express those views in public, but that they can then force those views on others with acts of discrimination.

I've said I wouldn't sue them, but I'd happily and loudly publicize THEIR OWN BIGOTED POLICIES. You've yet to state why that's a problem in the free market.

The decision of the business owner to deny service based on race is absolutely immoral and in direct conflict with what most of us would consider to be sound Christian principles but the only reason it's illegal is because we carved out a special niche for race based decisions in our law. Instead of treating everyone the same we decided that it was necessary to start picking winners and losers based on EXACTLY the thing we wanted to eliminate.

That's just factually incorrect. Here's the law:

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Three of four of those characteristics are an accident of birth - race, color, national origin. Seems fair to prohibit discriminatory acts based on something over which the person has no control. And the fourth of those protects the free exercise of religion by protecting people from discrimination based only on who or how they worship. So the same law protecting this mixed race couple protects the Christian owners from being discriminated against because they are Christians.

And what we wanted to eliminate with the CRA was a system of state-sponsored and enforced white supremacy, particularly in but not limited to the South. You're seemingly ignoring ALL that history to misstate the goals of the CRA, then and now.

 

[Lisa]

That's right! They cannot get married anywhere because of this place!

It is about the legal precedent that would be set if they give this bigot an exemption from the public accommodation protections. If he gets an exemption then why shouldn't ever another bigot who tries to hide bigotry behind the bible also not deserve the same exemption?

 

[AProudLefty]

It is about the legal precedent that would be set if they give this bigot an exemption from the public accommodation protections. If he gets an exemption then why shouldn't ever another bigot who tries to hide bigotry behind the bible also not deserve the same exemption?

Yep...

 

[Lutherf]

We have a 200 year national history of slavery, then white supremacy and Jim Crow, and laws making interracial marriage illegal for 200 years to advance the cause of white supremacy that only ended when the SC struck them down. We also have a long national history of religious bigotry. So, yeah, there's a reason those characteristics are targeted, and it's because of the damage/harm that history inflicted on the groups discriminated against.

I've never heard of a proprietor turning down a wedding because one is ugly, and nudists and/or Nazis aren't good comparisons because those involve ACTS versus characteristics like being black at birth or being a Jew.

Bottom line is you're demanding peace and goodwill extended to those committing acts of discrimination against others, and believe calling out acts of discrimination is somehow illegitimate. It's not enough that they be allowed to be bigots and express those views in public, but that they can then force those views on others with acts of discrimination.

I've said I wouldn't sue them, but I'd happily and loudly publicize THEIR OWN BIGOTED POLICIES. You've yet to state why that's a problem in the free market.



That's just factually incorrect. Here's the law:



Three of four of those characteristics are an accident of birth - race, color, national origin. Seems fair to prohibit discriminatory acts based on something over which the person has no control. And the fourth of those protects the free exercise of religion by protecting people from discrimination based only on who or how they worship. So the same law protecting this mixed race couple protects the Christian owners from being discriminated against because they are Christians.

And what we wanted to eliminate with the CRA was a system of state-sponsored and enforced white supremacy, particularly in but not limited to the South. You're seemingly ignoring ALL that history to misstate the goals of the CRA, then and now.

I have no problem with anyone calling out acts of racial discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. I do have a problem with government taking punitive action against people for their beliefs when the effect of those beliefs is minimal, easily mitigated and uncommon.

 

[Lutherf]

It is about the legal precedent that would be set if they give this bigot an exemption from the public accommodation protections. If he gets an exemption then why shouldn't ever another bigot who tries to hide bigotry behind the bible also not deserve the same exemption?

You speak about this as if such discrimination is endemic. It isn't. The whole reason this is a story is because it's so insanely outside the behavioral norms we see in today's society. Feel free to blow the idiots out of the water on social media if you think that will help but it's ridiculous to make this out to be a precursor to the decline of civilization as we know it.

There are simply better ways to deal with this kind of thing than bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it.

 

[Lisa]

I have no problem with anyone calling out acts of racial discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. I do have a problem with government taking punitive action against people for their beliefs when the effect of those beliefs is minimal, easily mitigated and uncommon.

Your religious beliefs are not a valid reason to discriminate against others when you operate a business that is open to the public. if we would give you that exemption from obeying the CRA then why shouldn't we give the same exemption to ex everyone else, which would nullify the reason that the law exists? If you don't operate a public business or the time that you aren't at the business you can wear a pointy sheet, tie nooses and set aflame crosses in your own yard, but when you deal with others you must obey the law requiring equal service.

Where did Jesus say to act in this way in the 4 gospels, if you claim to be a Christian?

 

[Lisa]

You speak about this as if such discrimination is endemic. It isn't. The whole reason this is a story is because it's so insanely outside the behavioral norms we see in today's society. Feel free to blow the idiots out of the water on social media if you think that will help but it's ridiculous to make this out to be a precursor to the decline of civilization as we know it.

There are simply better ways to deal with this kind of thing than bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it.

It doesn't matter if discrimination is epidemic or it isn't. All people must be treated equally. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to ignore the law when you are dealing with others. That big hammer exists as a tool of effective enforcement. We are an equal and interdependasnt society and your beliefs do not give you an exemption from treating others in a rational and respectful manner.

 

[JasperL]

I understand. My comments are specifically to the poster And how he’d like to destroy someone life.

OK, but for the record, here's how that comment was prefaced: "If you want to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation..." That's still an act, not a thought.

My brother is gay. I cannot reasonably demand people accept homosexuality or approve of it, but what society can do is demand that they be treated like everyone else with regard to things like renting them a hotel room, restaurants, and marriage. If we are supposed to 'tolerate' (in this example) those opposed to homosexuality, those whose opinions we disagree with, then why is it unfair to demand they also return the favor? They don't have to approve of interracial marriage, just get out of the way and allow that couple to make their own marriage decisions, treat them with the respect they'd demand of others for their religious views.

 

[AGENT J]

I have no problem with anyone calling out acts of racial discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. I do have a problem with government taking punitive action against people for their beliefs when the effect of those beliefs is minimal, easily mitigated and uncommon.

Translation: who cares about laws and other peoples rights

also NOBODY is taking action against anybody for any "BELIEFS" another lie and strawman bites the dust and once again your hypocrisy exposed

 

[TheParser]

1. Any kind of discrimination cannot be allowed in 2019 -- regardless of one's "religious" views.

2. Of course, every person has the right to dislike or fear any gender, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc.

a. But discriminating against them in any manner is simply unacceptable in 2019 when it comes to any kind of public accommodation.

3. One either marries everyone, or one finds another business; one makes wedding cakes for everyone, or one finds another business; etc.

4. In one's personal life, of course, one may discriminate as much as possible. (For example, if you do not want your children attending school with, let's say, a lot of aliens from Mars, then it's your right to choose another school or sign up for Internet school or even do homeschooling . But it is NOT your right to stop those Martians from attending that school.)

 

[AGENT J]

You speak about this as if such discrimination is endemic. It isn't. The whole reason this is a story is because it's so insanely outside the behavioral norms we see in today's society. Feel free to blow the idiots out of the water on social media if you think that will help but it's ridiculous to make this out to be a precursor to the decline of civilization as we know it.

There are simply better ways to deal with this kind of thing than bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it.

Yeah if you get robbed simply dont walk down that street any more, car gets stolen dont have a nice care. house gets vandalized move. sally gets rapped dont wear that skirt any more . . . all simply "better ways"
Again the never of anybody to stand up for their rights!!! How dare they, they should know their place and move along, right! sorry nobody honest educate and objective is buying it. so easy to destroy your false claims lies and strawmen.

since you dodged all the other questions here is two more that will be fun to ask
A.) why is a person defending their rights and taking a stand against a crime against them " bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it"
b.) why is a person being held responsible for the crimes and or rights violations he CHOOSE to commit = " " bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it"
opcorn2:

 

[Visbek]

You talk about discriminatory acts but it's really just a small subset of such acts that you're concerned with.

Here we go

If the business proprietor had declined the engagement because the customer was ugly or because they were nudists or because they were nazis it wouldn't be a problem for the law or, presumably, for either of you.

I can't speak about specific posters. I can, however, discuss actual laws.

We as a society have chosen to protect various classes, due to a history of discrimination, as well as a respect for civil rights. Different jurisdictions handle this slightly differently. E.g. in California, you cannot discriminate on the basis of ideology or political affiliation; public accommodations in CA cannot, for example, refuse to serve someone because they are a Nazi. Most US states do not offer that specific protection.

A public accommodation can still refuse to serve people based on other criteria, such as lack of hygiene, not wearing a shirt, or obnoxious behavior. However, the business cannot be arbitrary and inconsistent in its rules. E.g. if a restaurant applies a dress code, it has to apply to all customers. If the waitress tells a customer "we won't serve you because you're too ugly," that might be too arbitrary of a standard. We should note this is enacted to close a potential loophole, e.g. making up reasons on the spot to disguise discrimination against a protected class.

The only factor that makes this decision unconscionable is the fact that it involved race. You guys are totally selective in what you choose to be outraged about and manage to personalize the issue instead of look at it rationally.

Are you for reals?

Yes, it is entirely and 100% justified to protect against racial discrimination. We have actual reasons for this, not the least of which is the legacy of centuries of slavery, discrimination, segregation, and so on -- which continues to this very day, as typified by this business' discriminatory action. In fact, the whole point of anti-discrimination laws is to make sure that everyone has the same access to public accommodations. When you operate a public accommodation, you do not get to decide who is and is not a member of "the public."

The idea that protections against discrimination on the basis of race is somehow arbitrary or capricious is downright ludicrous.

 

[JasperL]

I have no problem with anyone calling out acts of racial discrimination or any other kind of discrimination. I do have a problem with government taking punitive action against people for their beliefs when the effect of those beliefs is minimal, easily mitigated and uncommon.

I don't know why you insist on repeatedly mischaracterizing the issue. It's not about beliefs but discriminatory ACTS. Government is taking NO punitive action against their beliefs, the CRA doesn't address beliefs.

And let's bring this, again, back to what's required under the law. I'll quote it again:

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Fifty years of that law in place has made the impact of discriminatory ACTS at least uncommon, because in places of public accommodation they are illegal. We have a couple of generations who have grown up with no personal knowledge of "Whites Only" signs in restaurants, something common in this area when I was born. So why do you object to the law? What's the purpose of repealing or ignoring it?

 

[Lutherf]

Yeah if you get robbed simply dont walk down that street any more, car gets stolen dont have a nice care. house gets vandalized move. sally gets rapped dont wear that skirt any more . . . all simply "better ways"
Again the never of anybody to stand up for their rights!!! How dare they, they should know their place and move along, right! sorry nobody honest educate and objective is buying it. so easy to destroy your false claims lies and strawmen.

since you dodged all the other questions here is two more that will be fun to ask
A.) why is a person defending their rights and taking a stand against a crime against them " bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it"
b.) why is a person being held responsible for the crimes and or rights violations he CHOOSE to commit = " " bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it"
opcorn2:

And once again you compare this to rape, robbery and vandalism. It isn't the least bit comparable to those things.

 

[AGENT J]

And once again you compare this to rape, robbery and vandalism. It isn't the least bit comparable to those things.

aaaaaaane more dodging!!! I love when your posts get the **** kicked out of them by multiple posters and facts so your follow UP posts just contain more dodging, deflections, lies and strawmen. Its awesome!
Not the least bit comparable??? Says you but you are factually wrong since those are all crimes against a person and or violations of their rights :shrug:
Why is this magically different??

Once again your posted hypocrisy is exposed for all to see and its delicious!!! you falsely assured others of having special niche views and selectivity but you keep factually proving its only YOU

Here where go again:
A.) why is a person defending their rights and taking a stand against a crime against them " bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it"
B.) why is a person being held responsible for the crimes and or rights violations he CHOOSE to commit = " " bringing in the biggest hammer we can find and bashing people over the head with it"
C.) support your lie and show where i ignored other rights and or laws?
D.) support your lie and show how this is punishing "beliefs"

we are waiting, thanks!

 

[Lisa]

And once again you compare this to rape, robbery, and vandalism. It isn't the least bit comparable to those things.

Maybe they decide to rob somebody and claim that a passage in the Bible is a defense? Maybe they claim that their rape(Deut 22-23:29) is permitted by the Old Testament. They could also use the laws of other religions to claim an exemption to the US Constitution and then claim that the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to rule in this matter them because of their religious belief.

Why should bigots get to hide behind the 1st Amendment protections for religious beliefs as a way to avoid the law requiring equal service? Do you see the dangerous precedent that this would set?

 

[Gaius46]

OK, but for the record, here's how that comment was prefaced: "If you want to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation..." That's still an act, not a thought.

My brother is gay. I cannot reasonably demand people accept homosexuality or approve of it, but what society can do is demand that they be treated like everyone else with regard to things like renting them a hotel room, restaurants, and marriage. If we are supposed to 'tolerate' (in this example) those opposed to homosexuality, those whose opinions we disagree with, then why is it unfair to demand they also return the favor? They don't have to approve of interracial marriage, just get out of the way and allow that couple to make their own marriage decisions, treat them with the respect they'd demand of others for their religious views.

I think the reality of the situation is that there's not a whole lot of toleration by either side. For better or worse there are a lot of religious people who have legitimate - given their beliefs - issues with gay marriage and I don't doubt for an instant that their objections are spurred by beliefs they've held all their lives that have essentially been turned on their heads in the last 15 years or so. They need to get with the program but the attitude that I see all too often of "tough **** get used to it" really isn't all that helpful.

So yeah they should understand that gay people have every right to get married but gay couples should also understand why someone who's spent their entire life thinking that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between a man and a woman might be reluctant to help them.

 

[RAMOSS]

If you had two sources verifying it, would you condemn it?

I actually will agree with Vesper about not using the daily mail. I would verify it using a source that wasn't either far right winged, or far left winged, and one that has a good reputation for the accuracy of it's claims. For example, I won't use the daily beast because they tend to spin things to far to the left (even if I agree with them). I would accept someone using them, because fact checking them shows a high level of confidence about the facts they use , although I will be leary of loaded words.

 

[Gaius46]

1.) But it doesn't because me and you are free to open a private business or membership business etc.
If his lady has a problem with blacks then she shouldnt have CHOOSE a pubic access venue or she shouldn't CHOOSE to do a service within that public venue that will hurt her feelings.
"If" she CHOOSES not to follow the law, CHOOSES not to honor her particular business contract (and the rules that come with it) and or CHOOSES to violate the rights or others thats HER issue and HER fault . . . not the governments

thats what kills me the most about these nut jobs . . .not only is their trouble of their own making they violate the law and or rights with pure ignorance and arrogance. Its like they want the world to know they are a bigot . .
the system isnt perfect and 1000s of people illegally discriminate everyday BUT they do it so theres no proof.

"oh sorry we are doubled booked that day" "sorry we are out of stock of that product etc etc"

these imbeciles actually tell on themselves . . . . lol


2.) How is that a solution though? crimes were still committed and rights possible violated. again why is THIS issue magically different from others
car gets stolen? dont buy a nice one or park it there any more
you get robbed dont walk down the street no more
your house gets vandalized move somewhere else

YOU may rank those differently but legally they arent at thier foundation, they are crimes against people and or rights violations

3.) I understand what you are saying but who gets to decided if its "perverse" who defines that?
probably 100s of times a day throughout the nation isnt enough? (illegal discrimination)

and again the same question simply using your term, what other crimes and rights violations would you apply perverse too? theft, assault, rape vandalism etc

why should a person just move one and forget about a crime being committed against them and or their rights being violated . . .

Technically these aren't crimes. A crime is a violation of criminal code,public accomodations are civil not criminal.

When I spoke about pervasive I was thinking of a situation more like in the south. Whole towns of businesses discriminated against black people and they had no effective choices. To me if there are six bakers in a town and one refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding but the five would be happy to then that isn't a pervasive problem because the customer has lots of other choices. In that case I'd prefer to see market solutions.

(as a complete aside I think anyone who insists on doing business with a baker or any other artisan who doesn't want to do business with them is nuts. Wedding cakes require some skill to make - my step daughter is a pastry chef and spends hours making her wedding cakes as perfect as she possibly can - and if there's a chance the guy isn't going to give it his best effort I wouldn't want him making my wedding cake)


You're right if someone opens a business they have to comply with the business license and they should know that going in unless they plan to go to court over the terms of the license. But until then they have to comply.

 

[JasperL]

I think the reality of the situation is that there's not a whole lot of toleration by either side. For better or worse there are a lot of religious people who have legitimate - given their beliefs - issues with gay marriage and I don't doubt for an instant that their objections are spurred by beliefs they've held all their lives that have essentially been turned on their heads in the last 15 years or so. They need to get with the program but the attitude that I see all too often of "tough **** get used to it" really isn't all that helpful.

So yeah they should understand that gay people have every right to get married but gay couples should also understand why someone who's spent their entire life thinking that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between a man and a woman might be reluctant to help them.

Right, and I agree to some extent. As I keep saying and have said on other threads, I'm not a fan of civil lawsuits against people who discriminate. My view is if they don't want to marry gays, give the money to someone who DOES. What I do support is publicity, and figuratively 'outing' these people because that's in my view the better response. They're not victims of their own policies being made public, as I see it, and people shunning their business based on them is fine, a good thing in my view. Reward tolerance and mutual respect, don't reward bigotry! Seems OK to me.

Sue them and they become victims in the eyes of many. IMO, that's counterproductive.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Technically these aren't crimes. A crime is a violation of criminal code,public accomodations are civil not criminal.

2.) When I spoke about pervasive I was thinking of a situation more like in the south. Whole towns of businesses discriminated against black people and they had no effective choices. To me if there are six bakers in a town and one refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding but the five would be happy to then that isn't a pervasive problem because the customer has lots of other choices. In that case I'd prefer to see market solutions.

3.) (as a complete aside I think anyone who insists on doing business with a baker or any other artisan who doesn't want to do business with them is nuts. Wedding cakes require some skill to make - my step daughter is a pastry chef and spends hours making her wedding cakes as perfect as she possibly can - and if there's a chance the guy isn't going to give it his best effort I wouldn't want him making my wedding cake)

4.)You're right if someone opens a business they have to comply with the business license and they should know that going in unless they plan to go to court over the terms of the license. But until then they have to comply.

1.) actually a crime a violation of a law in which jail, prison, fines and or restitution/liability as possible penalties can be involved. You are talking about types of crime or categories of crime and where they are handled in which courts. But its all crime. :shrug:
2.) so again why do you condone letting people get away with crime, illegal activity or rights violations in this case and not others? It isnt pervasive to you but it is to others. And what you descibe is most definitely a problem IMO in a civil society like ours which has rights and laws. I have no understating how one could see this has magically difference besides a symptom or privilege, not caring about rights and or hypocrisy. You didnt answer where else do you see pervasive as a meaningful factor? theft, rape, assault, embezzlement, fraud, vandalism etc etc . . and also what are "market solutions"

3.) I agree but im not aware of anybody doing that nor does it matter, thats meaningless to the issues at hand. Its a matter of fighting for rights and against crimes and illegal activity.
I probably wouldnt want to work for a company that fired me or didnt promote me based on race, gender religion etc but that doesn't mean i would just let them break the law and or violate my rights . . .
You have a daughter . . if a person gets "handsy" with her should she just not go out with the person no more, not talking rape but how about sexual assault . . .should she just do a market solution so to speak? boycott that parson dates and tell everybody?
is that really a "solution"?
is it justice?
does it keep her perceived rights intact?

4.) and thats why im fine with the government stepping in, they are doing their job . . protecting rights, punishing crimes and enforcing contracts that if they are stepping in a person CHOOSE to violate . . the simply solution is dont break the law and or violate rights.
"Market solutions" IMO if i know what you mean are simply away to let anarchy spread and people get away with illegal activity.

Sometimes they work and sometimes they have the exact opposite effect . . . when it comes to civil rights, no thank you.