Mixed Race Couple Denied Wedding Venue

[AGENT J]

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.

I agree 100% but again all that ends as soon as one commits an illegal act or crime or violates somebody rights . . . if i was gay i cant give tolerance for crimes committed against me or illegal activity against me and or my rights
its not a little thing, thats simply how rights and laws work

again i cant help but sound like a broken record and ask where else would this be suitable? the law and rights are a "get with the program or tough" kind of thing . . . typically in most cases you dont get to keep breaking the law or commit crimes cause thats how you were raised or your beliefs or thats what you are used too.

I do understand what you are saying but i dont see an intolerance. Have i seen intolerance from both sides? absolutely!!!!
but in a case like being discussed here the intolerance is only on one side. Unless some nutter is calling for this ladies death or something crazy.

 

[Blackrock]

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

Oh, wow. I'm forwarding this link to some people. Thank you for sharing it.

When Cakeshop happened, certain people and I had correspondence about its implications. My exact position was that allowing discrimination against a sexual orientation would restore abilities to discriminate against gender, race, color, and religion. I was met with two counter arguments. 1.) The baker didn't discriminate against a homosexual couple. He discriminated against their wedding; and that should be ok. 2.) I was playing chicken little because the US had escaped the possibility of certain minorities being refused service. "We've come so far," they said.

Now here we are. Modern day Americans refusing service and being refused service for reasons of race. I wonder what these people I'm referring to will say. Has the US shed racism? Obviously not. Is the service refusal an objection to the race of the minority half of the couple or an objection to the couple's marriage? I can't wait to see how that distinction matters in some minds and how any supporting perspective for refusing this service can be defended in any way.

 

[poweRob]

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

Saw the woman who denied them said it was against her religion. Then when asked where in the Bible does it support her she said she didnt want to debate her faith/religion.

What a fraud.

 

[Blackrock]

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.

If the law allows one asshole to break the law, then it allows all assholes to break the law. Now, I remember the argument that you've just laid out from the Cakeshop case. It was said that the gay couple should just take their business elsewhere and let the bigoted baker be a bigot. So I'll offer the same question now that I did then. If we allow this wedding venue to refuse service and subsequently, all of the other wedding venues in this Mississippi town also refuse service (both of them or all 50 of them, whatever the case may be), as would be their right, what recourse shall we recommend to the interracial couple who want to host a private event to celebrate their love with their family and friends?

Shall they and everyone they know fly to NYC to find a banquet hall that doesn't interfere with their established civil rights?

 

[Blackrock]

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.

How do you know that? What alternative venue do you suggest and where is it? Did you confirm that they accept interracial customers?

 

[Lisa]

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.

Does that also apply to black people who seek to patronize "Whites-Only" businesses or won't you admit to being a racist?

 

[Lutherf]

If the law allows one asshole to break the law, then it allows all assholes to break the law. Now, I remember the argument that you've just laid out from the Cakeshop case. It was said that the gay couple should just take their business elsewhere and let the bigoted baker be a bigot. So I'll offer the same question now that I did then. If we allow this wedding venue to refuse service and subsequently, all of the other wedding venues in this Mississippi town also refuse service (both of them or all 50 of them, whatever the case may be), as would be their right, what recourse shall we recommend to the interracial couple who want to host a private event to celebrate their love with their family and friends?

Shall they and everyone they know fly to NYC to find a banquet hall that doesn't interfere with their established civil rights?

That's a lot of "ifs" and there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing would occur.

If you've been following my responses on this type of thread than you know quite well that my concerns with this kind of thing only come when they become common or are sanctioned by the government. I see no sense whatsoever in bothering with petty issues when the "damages" are nothing more than hurt feelings.

Now then, if all private sector businesses chose not to accommodate the couple based on race that would certainly present a situation where government should get involved to correct the situation. What I SUSPECT would happen, however, is that someone in the community would take it upon themselves to open up a private residence or some other venue to accommodate the party. Not everyone is racist.

 

[AGENT J]

That's a lot of "ifs" and there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing would occur.

If you've been following my responses on this type of thread than you know quite well that my concerns with this kind of thing only come when they become common or are sanctioned by the government. I see no sense whatsoever in bothering with petty issues when the "damages" are nothing more than hurt feelings.

Now then, if all private sector businesses chose not to accommodate the couple based on race that would certainly present a situation where government should get involved to correct the situation. What I SUSPECT would happen, however, is that someone in the community would take it upon themselves to open up a private residence or some other venue to accommodate the party. Not everyone is racist.

and there you have it again folks . . your rights and illegal activity against YOU is simply petty and hurt feelings :lamo
hypocrisy, lies and topical ignorance exposed again . . that hole gets deeper and deeper . . i love it!

 

[noonereal]

and there you have it again folks . . your rights and illegal activity against YOU is simply petty and hurt feelings :lamo
hypocrisy, lies and topical ignorance exposed again . . that hole gets deeper and deeper . . i love it!

You have no right to discriminate. Not sure what you are referencing????

 

[AGENT J]

You have no right to discriminate. Not sure what you are referencing????

good thing i never said that but actually EVERYBODY has the right to disciminate . . nobody has the right to break the law or violate peoples rights, thats where the law is drawn

but since you are confused simply read what i quoted. Peoples rights along with crimes and or illegal activities against a them were called petty and just hurt feelings . .


do you agree? are your rights and protecting them just you being just petty and having hurt feelings?
how about crimes and or illegal activity committed against you? does standing up for yourslef in those cases just mean your being petty and have hurt feelings?

 

[noonereal]

good thing i never said that but actually EVERYBODY has the right to disciminate . . nobody has the right to break the law or violate peoples rights, thats where the law is drawn

but since you are confused simply read what i quoted. Peoples rights along with crimes and or illegal activities against a them were called petty and just hurt feelings . .


do you agree? are your rights and protecting them just you being just petty and having hurt feelings?
how about crimes and or illegal activity committed against you? does standing up for yourslef in those cases just mean your being petty and have hurt feelings?

Can you post a coherent thought so that we may understand your position and respond appropriately?

 

[Lutherf]

and there you have it again folks . . your rights and illegal activity against YOU is simply petty and hurt feelings :lamo
hypocrisy, lies and topical ignorance exposed again . . that hole gets deeper and deeper . . i love it!

Right. It's petty and it's nothing more than hurt feelings. The prospective patron isn't out any money and wasn't harmed in any way. The ONLY thing that happened is that they got their feelings hurt.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Right. It's petty and it's nothing more than hurt feelings. The prospective patron isn't out any money and wasn't harmed in any way.
2.)The ONLY thing that happened is that they got their feelings hurt.

1.) yet theres no fact to support your hypocritical claims, when you have some please let us know. Until much to my entertainment your claims will continue to get destroyed over and over again by facts and multiple posters
2.) actuall their rights were violated and or crimes and illegal activity was committed against them . . ooops your lies fail again

and lets continue the exposure and ask my question again that you keep running from

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!

 

[AGENT J]

Can you post a coherent thought so that we may understand your position and respond appropriately?

Translation: you are dodging my questions

sound like a YOU problem LOL

everything i said stands, disagree simply prove otherwise . . you cant

 

[noonereal]

Translation: you are dodging my questions

sound like a YOU problem LOL

everything i said stands, disagree simply prove otherwise . . you cant

I have no clue what your point is.

 

[Deuce]

Right. It's petty and it's nothing more than hurt feelings. The prospective patron isn't out any money and wasn't harmed in any way. The ONLY thing that happened is that they got their feelings hurt.

Holy **** we're rolling back to "actually it's ok to have a 'no blacks allowed' sign on your store"

(next thread) "Now let me tell you how liberals are the real racists"

 

[AGENT J]

I have no clue what your point is.

I agree that was obvious with your first post that mad no sense but again thats a you issue, not mine.

Ill gladly start over though so you can fix and or explain your mistakes . . .


heres my posts in response to a poster who called defending oneself from rights violations, crimes and or illegal activity petty and hurt feelings

and there you have it again folks . . your rights and illegal activity against YOU is simply petty and hurt feelings
hypocrisy, lies and topical ignorance exposed again . . that hole gets deeper and deeper . . i love it!

heres your post:

You have no right to discriminate. Not sure what you are referencing????

Can you explain where in my post ANYTHING was mentioned about a right to discriminate?

 

[Lutherf]

Holy **** we're rolling back to "actually it's ok to have a 'no blacks allowed' sign on your store"

(next thread) "Now let me tell you how liberals are the real racists"

There is a whole world of difference between instances of racism and institutional racism. You guys keep implying that a single instance will, if ignored, beget an institution and that's just plain crazy. Furthermore, using rules designed to combat institutional racism to punish a mere instance of racism is excessive. There are MUCH better ways to handle the instance without going overboard.

 

[Deuce]

There is a whole world of difference between instances of racism and institutional racism. You guys keep implying that a single instance will, if ignored, beget an institution and that's just plain crazy. Furthermore, using rules designed to combat institutional racism to punish a mere instance of racism is excessive. There are MUCH better ways to handle the instance without going overboard.

How many stores is the threshold for "instance" vs "institutional?"

 

[AGENT J]

There is a whole world of difference between instances of racism and institutional racism. You guys keep implying that a single instance will, if ignored, beget an institution and that's just plain crazy. Furthermore, using rules designed to combat institutional racism to punish a mere instance of racism is excessive. There are MUCH better ways to handle the instance without going overboard.

aaaand more strawmen and lies.
This will be awesome

So whats the better way to handle rights violations and or crimes ad illegal activities against a person? opcorn2:

 

[Blackrock]

That's a lot of "ifs" and there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing would occur.

If you've been following my responses on this type of thread than you know quite well that my concerns with this kind of thing only come when they become common or are sanctioned by the government. I see no sense whatsoever in bothering with petty issues when the "damages" are nothing more than hurt feelings.

Now then, if all private sector businesses chose not to accommodate the couple based on race that would certainly present a situation where government should get involved to correct the situation. What I SUSPECT would happen, however, is that someone in the community would take it upon themselves to open up a private residence or some other venue to accommodate the party. Not everyone is racist.

The "ifs" were your premise; and you may consider the number two as "a lot" if you want.

Regarding your second paragraph, when what becomes sanctioned by the government? I think you are unfamiliar with the legal definition of damages. "Hurt feelings" don't pass the muster of civil rights legislation. See 60 years of court precedent.

Your third paragraph, with all due respect, is word vomit.

 

[Dick Tornado]

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.

Lets say someone wants to get a life giving prescription at the local Pharmacy and the Pharmacist sees that it is a mixed marriage couple.

Would you be ok if the pharmacist gave them a placebo instead of their medication because mixed a race marriage conflicts with their beliefs?

Are these statements ok, the people are just being assholes?

I won't rent to a mixed race or gay couple....

I won't teach the children from a mixed race or gay couple....

You go to pick-up airline tickets at the terminal only to be told that now that we see you, your boarding passes are revoked....

Is it acceptable for someone to deny services because they claim that their religion says no to contacts with Roman Catholics, Jews or Muslims?

Discrimination in any form, is just discrimination.

 

[Dick Tornado]

What I SUSPECT would happen, however, is that someone in the community would take it upon themselves to open up a private residence or some other venue to accommodate the party. Not everyone is racist.

This would be a funny post, except you actually mean it.

 

[noonereal]

aaaand more strawmen and lies.
This will be awesome

So whats the better way to handle rights violations and or crimes ad illegal activities against a person? opcorn2:

OK, I get you now. You are purposefully twisting and confusing as part of your strategy.

I won't play.

I don't waste time with nonsense.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)OK, I get you now. You are purposefully twisting and confusing as part of your strategy.
2.)I won't play.
3.) I don't waste time with nonsense.

1.) well you just factually proved you dont get it at all, nice dodge
2.) you already are by dodging your mistake
3.) if thats true i guess youll never post again then, it will be a win for everybody!!

if you change your mind and you are ready to post with honesty integrity please let u know and answer my question, thanks!