Mixed Race Couple Denied Wedding Venue

[Gaius46]

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.

We’re pretty much in agreement then.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

Eh you don’t sound like a broken. I’m just doing a poor job of explaining my position.

The OP story is bad one to have this discussion because her views are extreme by any standard. Interracial couples have been a normal part of life for a long time.

When I talk about using market solutions I’m assuming we’ve gone back to the drawing board and have to choose between laws or the market to regulate this kind of behavior. I’m not suggesting that people don’t pursue legal remedies if they exist. If I were to be discriminated against (being a middle aged white hetero guy about the only discrimination I might ever face is age discrimination) I’d tend to choose a market solution because I think it’s a better way to go and dealing with the government is a pain in the ass but that’s just me.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Eh you don’t sound like a broken. I’m just doing a poor job of explaining my position.

2.) The OP story is bad one to have this discussion because her views are extreme by any standard. Interracial couples have been a normal part of life for a long time.

3.) When I talk about using market solutions I’m assuming we’ve gone back to the drawing board and have to choose between laws or the market to regulate this kind of behavior. I’m not suggesting that people don’t pursue legal remedies if they exist. If I were to be discriminated against (being a middle aged white hetero guy about the only discrimination I might ever face is age discrimination) I’d tend to choose a market solution because I think it’s a better way to go and dealing with the government is a pain in the ass but that’s just me.

1.) Maybe, i dont feel that way though ( that you are doing a poor job) i think you did fine i just dont agree nor do i think its an actual solution based on real-world factors and or given the focus it needs. Involving illegal activity, crime and or rights violations I think it needs a due focus. In this specific case its civil rights and i dont think people infringing on rights should be downplayed. I believe if thats done too much then those rights basically become lesser and easier to lose.

2.) agreed and true

3.) and you are not alone. If that is your CHOICE for you personally thats fine. There are times i may very well make the same choice but when it comes to my rights i would always want the legal avenue available. By design its supposed to be there, it NEEDS to be there to protect us all because a market solution is 50/50 and may do nothing to help or simply may allow your rights to erode further and further . . .Thats my point and my issue. The legal avenues need to be there and i would never judge anybody for taking them. A person standing up for their rights is nothing short of brave, courageous and patriotic.

Now since im a facts and reality guy . . .are there people out there dishonestly looking for a fight? are there people that will try to expose anybody even on the lightest or accidental offenses and make a mountain out of a molehill? yes, absolutely

and those people are counterproductive BUT thats just an unfortunate reality that exists like poor doctors, cops, judges etc. Yes poor ones exist but we dont scrap them all.


And yes has "a middle-aged white hetero guy" you getting discriminated against is less likely than say a 30 something, transgender, gay, middle eastern BUT that kind of plays into my point about how maybe, thats why you can brush it off easier. Im guilty of this myself, i already admitted that there probably are scenarios where i just move on too but, I think THAT can be more damaging since we are talking about rights. It would be me taking them for granted and taking rights for granted is a solid way to lose them or to weaken them. Thats all, I think we all should be better

 

[Gaius46]

1.) Maybe, i dont feel that way though ( that you are doing a poor job) i think you did fine i just dont agree nor do i think its an actual solution based on real-world factors and or given the focus it needs. Involving illegal activity, crime and or rights violations I think it needs a due focus. In this specific case its civil rights and i dont think people infringing on rights should be downplayed. I believe if thats done too much then those rights basically become lesser and easier to lose.

2.) agreed and true

3.) and you are not alone. If that is your CHOICE for you personally thats fine. There are times i may very well make the same choice but when it comes to my rights i would always want the legal avenue available. By design its supposed to be there, it NEEDS to be there to protect us all because a market solution is 50/50 and may do nothing to help or simply may allow your rights to erode further and further . . .Thats my point and my issue. The legal avenues need to be there and i would never judge anybody for taking them. A person standing up for their rights is nothing short of brave, courageous and patriotic.

Now since im a facts and reality guy . . .are there people out there dishonestly looking for a fight? are there people that will try to expose anybody even on the lightest or accidental offenses and make a mountain out of a molehill? yes, absolutely

and those people are counterproductive BUT thats just an unfortunate reality that exists like poor doctors, cops, judges etc. Yes poor ones exist but we dont scrap them all.


And yes has "a middle-aged white hetero guy" you getting discriminated against is less likely than say a 30 something, transgender, gay, middle eastern BUT that kind of plays into my point about how maybe, thats why you can brush it off easier. Im guilty of this myself, i already admitted that there probably are scenarios where i just move on too but, I think THAT can be more damaging since we are talking about rights. It would be me taking them for granted and taking rights for granted is a solid way to lose them or to weaken them. Thats all, I think we all should be better

While I’m not sure I agree with everything you’ve given me much to think about - especially as regards life outside of my own experience living as a white guy in a large very diverse city.

We also pretty much see eye to eye on the need to protect our rights though I usually restrict my thinking there to the Bill of Rights. Maybe I should rethink that as well.

Anyway thanks for an informative and pleasant discussion. Have a good evening.

 

[AGENT J]

While I’m not sure I agree with everything you’ve given me much to think about - especially as regards life outside of my own experience living as a white guy in a large very diverse city.

We also pretty much see eye to eye on the need to protect our rights though I usually restrict my thinking there to the Bill of Rights. Maybe I should rethink that as well.

Anyway thanks for an informative and pleasant discussion. Have a good evening.

You do the same and its always a pleasure having a normal conversation whether we agree or not

 

[PTF]

There's no problem. I'm sure there are other venues besides Boone's Camp Event Hall the couple could look into...end of story.

 

[Lisa]

There's no problem. I'm sure there are other venues besides Boone's Camp Event Hall the couple could look into...end of story.

That could also be said for blacks seeking equality instead of being denied equal service in Whites-Only businesses. That was ended by the Civil Rights Acts public accommodation protections that prohibited any business from using their conservative religious beliefs as a defense for discrimination in a public business.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

Well the bigger question here is whether they should be allowed to legally discriminate because they believe their god told them this is wrong. Some Christians will agree, others don't interpret the Bible in the same way. So which is it, and how far down the rabbit hole with people's belief based discriminatory views do we go?

 

[marke]

Well the bigger question here is whether they should be allowed to legally discriminate because they believe their god told them this is wrong. Some Christians will agree, others don't interpret the Bible in the same way. So which is it, and how far down the rabbit hole with people's belief based discriminatory views do we go?

Restaurants discriminate against the half-naked so what is wrong with telling sodomites you cannot show any support for their sodomite wedding? The Constitution does not allow sodomites to discriminate against Christians or to deny them their civil rights.

 

[Lisa]

Restaurants discriminate against the half-naked so what is wrong with telling sodomites you cannot show any support for their sodomite wedding? The Constitution does not allow sodomites to discriminate against Christians or to deny them their civil rights.

Stop with the false analogies.

Discriminating against people are half-naked is because of the health code. There is nothing in the health code that supports denying black, LGBT and interracial couples from equal service. You support religious bigotry that seeks to continue to hide your bigotry behind the religious protections of the First Amendment, despite the clear teachings of your savior to treat others as yourself.

Why is it that you cite one passage of Levictis and ignore the rest? You should be protesting Macy's, Walmart, and Red Lobster, among many others if your beliefs were sincere. You should also be opposing Trump's policy on immigration if you support all of Leviticus equally.

 

[marke]

Well the bigger question here is whether they should be allowed to legally discriminate because they believe their god told them this is wrong. Some Christians will agree, others don't interpret the Bible in the same way. So which is it, and how far down the rabbit hole with people's belief based discriminatory views do we go?

We may have to decide on a case by case basis. Courts have already ruled that Colorado violated the baker's civil rights by discriminating against him on the basis of his religion when he refused to participate in making a gay wedding cake. Let Sodomites go somewhere else if they don't like Christians or their religious beliefs.

 

[AGENT J]

We may have to decide on a case by case basis. Courts have already ruled that Colorado violated the baker's civil rights by discriminating against him on the basis of his religion when he refused to participate in making a gay wedding cake. Let Sodomites go somewhere else if they don't like Christians or their religious beliefs.

No such ruling was made why do you lie so much? I mean its funny and hilarious watching you post lies and multiple posters kick the **** out of them but what does having your posts look so stupid do for you? LMAO

The very narrow decision was that the state violated procedure and didnt practice due diligence in their reaction and deciding the case. The baker is STILL 100% FACTUALLY not allowed to break the law and or violate peoples rights. Try again

 

[Lisa]

We may have to decide on a case by case basis. Courts have already ruled that Colorado violated the baker's civil rights by discriminating against him on the basis of his religion when he refused to participate in making a gay wedding cake. Let Sodomites go somewhere else if they don't like Christians or their religious beliefs.

You are lying because this has been explained to you previously in detail.

No, they didn't decide that. They decided that the state commission was wrong to call him a religious bigot. The SCOTUS did not rule on the core issue that he has the right to deny equal service to LGBT customers based on his religious beliefs.

The court would have ruled in favor in the state if they had been neutral in their treatment of Jack Phillips.

Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[

Do you plan to lie about this ruling again in the future?

he Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[35] Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "[t]he outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market"

 

[Blue Dog]

These people are pseudo Christians. Faith,Hope, and Love does not allow room for bigotry!

 

[marke]

Stop with the false analogies.

Discriminating against people are half-naked is because of the health code. There is nothing in the health code that supports denying black, LGBT and interracial couples from equal service. You support religious bigotry that seeks to continue to hide your bigotry behind the religious protections of the First Amendment, despite the clear teachings of your savior to treat others as yourself.

Why is it that you cite one passage of Levictis and ignore the rest? You should be protesting Macy's, Walmart, and Red Lobster, among many others if your beliefs were sincere. You should also be opposing Trump's policy on immigration if you support all of Leviticus equally.

If a sodomite asks me to make him a cake I will be glad to. If a sodomite asks me to make a cake for a gay wedding and put wording on the cake in support of the gay wedding I will have to tell him that I cannot support a gay wedding in any respect because of my religious convictions. If a hard-hearted, hot-headed, inconsiderate sodomite does not like that response and proceeds to force me to make his damn wedding cake then he will discover he has hit a brick wall. I don't care what his views on sex are but he will not be forcing me to abandon God and the Bible just to make him feel good about his sin.

 

[Lisa]

If a sodomite asks me to make him a cake I will be glad to. If a sodomite asks me to make a cake for a gay wedding and put the wording on the cake in support of the gay wedding I will have to tell him that I cannot support a gay wedding in any respect because of my religious convictions. If a hard-hearted, hot-headed, inconsiderate sodomite does not like that response and proceeds to force me to make his damn wedding cake then he will discover he has hit a brick wall. I don't care what his views on sex are but he will not be forcing me to abandon God and the Bible just to make him feel good about his sin.

You don't write about wedding cakes, except maybe the date. They aren't retirement or birthday cakes for Edith in accounting. Stop making your customers beliefs personal and just do your job as a rational and mature adult. Nobody is asking you to agree with them or give your religious approval to their relationship. You're just a baker or a florist.
Are these are offensive to you? These are wedding cakes.
wedding cakes - Google Search


I've designed 2 additions for a church decades ago and I did the best that I could do and kept my beliefs to myself. Its called being an adult.

 

[marke]

No such ruling was made why do you lie so much? I mean its funny and hilarious watching you post lies and multiple posters kick the **** out of them but what does having your posts look so stupid do for you? LMAO

The very narrow decision was that the state violated procedure and didnt practice due diligence in their reaction and deciding the case. The baker is STILL 100% FACTUALLY not allowed to break the law and or violate peoples rights. Try again

Nobody broke the law. The Christian refused to violate his religion and fought efforts of sodomites to discriminate against him and violate his civil rights.

 

[Casca XV]

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

So some old time 1950s era Democrats still exist? who knew.

 

[marke]

You are lying because this has been explained to you previously in detail.

No, they didn't decide that. They decided that the state commission was wrong to call him a religious bigot. The SCOTUS did not rule on the core issue that he has the right to deny equal service to LGBT customers based on his religious beliefs.

The court would have ruled in favor in the state if they had been neutral in their treatment of Jack Phillips.


Do you plan to lie about this ruling again in the future?

It took only one sodomite judge to overrule California's popular Proposition 8. I am not in favor of activist leftist judges violating the Constitution and promoting leftist ideology because they have the power to do it and have found Americans unwilling to stop them. No judge, jury or lawmaker can make a Christian violate the will of God if that Christian is unwilling to allow it.

 

[marke]

You don't write about wedding cakes, except maybe the date. They aren't retirement or birthday cakes for Edith in accounting. Stop making your customers beliefs personal and just do your job as a rational and mature adult. Nobody is asking you to agree with them or give your religious approval to their relationship. You're just a baker or a florist.
Are these are offensive to you? These are wedding cakes.
wedding cakes - Google Search


I've designed 2 additions for a church decades ago and I did the best that I could do and kept my beliefs to myself. Its called being an adult.

Sodomite: 'Can you make a cake for my gay wedding?'
Christian: 'Sure, no problem.'
Sodomite: 'Here is what I want written on it.'
Christian, after examining the wording: 'Sorry, no can do.'
Sodomite: 'How dare you say "No" to me?'
Christian: 'I cannot violate my religious convictions. Perhaps we could just leave off the wording.'
Sodomite: 'Hell, you cannot change the wording. Not only that, but I want two men kissing on top, and I want you to deliver it personally at just the precise romantic moment.'
Christian: 'I believe you will just have to find someone else to do all of that for you.'
Sodomite: 'The hell I will. If you don't do as I say I will ruin you. I will have you arrested. I will destroy your business. I will sue you for every dime in your savings. And I will laugh at your misery. I don't put up with discrimination or hatred.'

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Nobody broke the law.
2.) The Christian refused to violate his religion and fought efforts of sodomites to discriminate against him and violate his civil rights.

1.) where did i say anybody broke the law? LMAO you just got caught posting ANOTHER lie
2.) more fantasy and lies., please post ONE fact that makes your lies true . . ONE, thanks
seems you can;t stop sinning

opcorn2:

 

[JustHanging]

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.

Agreed. I'm glad the couple found out they were dealing with a couple of Trump's "very fine people" before they laid out any cash.

 

[JustHanging]

So some old time 1950s era Democrats still exist? who knew.

Yep. Of course the Republican party using the racist Southern Strategy for over 1/2 a century has shifted things a bit, so now virtually all the racists are gathered under the Republican banner. We both know these are almost certainly Trump supporters.

Like these guys:

Neo-Nazis Praise Trump's Charlottesville Reaction: 'He Loves Us All'

Funny how things change over time eh?

 

[Lisa]

It took only one sodomite judge to overrule California's popular Proposition 8. I am not in favor of activist leftist judges violating the Constitution and promoting leftist ideology because they have the power to do it and have found Americans unwilling to stop them. No judge, jury or lawmaker can make a Christian violate the will of God if that Christian is unwilling to allow it.

We as a country do not vote on the rights of a minority so that the judge understands the basic concept of civil rights for minorities, unlike you and religious conservatives.
The role of federal judges is to determine constitutionality, so you are again wrong, despite your bluster and rhetoric.

How are equal rights a leftist ideology? Were civil rights equal for blacks and interracial marriage also a leftist ideology

Nobody cares if conservative Christians such as yourself like LGBT marriage because you aren't being asked and your religious beliefs do not get to decide what rights anyone else enjoys.

 

[Lisa]

Sodomite: 'Can you make a cake for my gay wedding?'
Christian: 'Sure, no problem.'
Sodomite: 'Here is what I want to be written on it.'
Christian, after examining the wording: 'Sorry, no can do.'
Sodomite: 'How dare you say "No" to me?'
Christian: 'I cannot violate my religious convictions. Perhaps we could just leave off the wording.'
Sodomite: 'Hell, you cannot change the wording. Not only that, but I want two men kissing on top, and I want you to deliver it personally at just the precise romantic moment.'
Christian: 'I believe you will just have to find someone else to do all of that for you.'
Sodomite: 'The hell I will. If you don't do as I say I will ruin you. I will have you arrested. I will destroy your business. I will sue you for every dime in your savings. And I will laugh at your misery. I don't put up with discrimination or hatred.'

Most LGBT couple in the US are Christian so how is serving them a violation of the religious beliefs when they are also Christians? Do they plan to deny hetero couples who are not conservative Christians and are LGBT supportive?

This might be TMI for many but I wonder if those same religious bigots plan to ask their hetero couples if they also take part in non-vaginal sex? Do the same people also plan to deny them equal service?

How many Americans are having anal sex?”

Good question! Anal sex appears to be quite popular in the USA. Also, although this activity is most commonly associated with gay men, there are a large number of heterosexuals who practice it.

Let’s take a look at some numbers. First, let’s consider the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB), a nationally representative sex survey conducted in the United States and published in 2010 [1]. In this study, anal sex was most common among men and women in their late 20s and 30s (however, it is important to note that this behavior was reported by at least some participants in every age group, including those age 70+). Specifically, 27% of guys aged 25-29 and 24% of guys aged 30-39 reported having insertive anal intercourse (i.e., “topping”) in the last year. For receptive anal intercourse (i.e., “bottoming”), the numbers were 4% and 3%, respectively.

Among women, 21% of those aged 25-29 and 22% of those aged 30-39 reported receptive anal intercourse in the last year. Women were not asked about experiences with insertive anal intercourse, although we do know that there are at least some women who practice “pegging,” which involves anally penetrating a partner (male or female) while wearing a strap-on dildo.

In the NSSHB, the sample predominately identified as heterosexual (92.2% of men and 93.2% of women). This tells us that the vast majority of the people who reported experiences with anal sex were straight.

If we take a look at lifetime prevalence rates for anal sex, the numbers are even higher. For instance, a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control revealed that 44% of men and 36% of women reported having had anal sex at least once in their lives [2]. Like the NSSHB, this sample was also predominately heterosexual (94%).