Blatant discrimination:’ Christian B&B owner fined $80K for refusing gay ‘wedding’ co

no they cant, period

 

Homosexuality occurs naturally and gays can't be normal any more than the rest of us can be gay.

The problem is, an awful lot of the rest of the 97% of society that isn't gay finds man on man (etc) repugnant. Is that "discrimination" or just humans reacting as humans? I think the latter.

I think if gays accepted being totally allowed to do "their thing" I'm private but nothing more there'd be no problem. But the aggressive gay lobby's drive for the right to suck each other's faces off in public, get married, adopt children and the rest has a lot of the remainder of us quietly squirming, if not a bit shame-facedly outright disgusted.

 

Because the objective is not to get married, it's to pursue a political agenda.

 

Yeh, probably some truth to that...

 

LMAO and yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

This is such a typical response. Why do gays assume everyone else is a closet gay? I've heard this so many times. Someone posts gay opposition and someone invariably says "ooooh you must be gay too".

 

Source?

 

If one finds it repugnant, that is on that person. And they need to figure out why.
No divorcee, single person, remarried couple should ever do any of your above BS.
Don't ever have sex with any light, don't ever have any sex that isn't missionary style. If one comes right down to it, don't ever have sex unless the entire purpose is to try and procreate. Else it's outright disgusting.

 

The objective is to get married. But, some bigot thinks their sins are less than another sin. But, the bible doesn't rank sins. So the bigots are trying to play god.

 

It's not everyone. Just those who whine the loudest. And usually because it's true.
But, their social surroundings won't let them be who they are, so it amounts mostly to fear.

 

umm, this is about a B+B, not some cake. They refused to service an event which celebrated the gay-sex lifestyle. It could have all been heterosexuals asking for the gay-sex celebration and the owners would still have refused. Those who live the gay lifestyle were not being discriminated, the owner as a Christian cannot participate in celebrations of the gay lifestyle

 

Yes they can, period. For instance in Illinois, it is only against the law to discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or unfavorable discharge from military service". One CAN discriminate on any other basis whatsoever. A business owner can throw you out for the way you cut your hair if he wants. Unless of course it is a gay with the funny haircut that you are throwing out. THEN, it will simply be presumed that you instead threw him out because of his sexual orientation.

 

You're right, they can also not participate in the celebration of the bigot lifestyle - because they are no longer in business

As long as you keep your public accommodation status - I hope they shut down every one of these places that believe they are above the law. Fine them into oblivion. Remove public accommodation laws from everyone and the issue disappears *poof*

 

Or unless they have a cross on their neck or a hijab on the head. You wanna be a bigot - fine. You should have the right to serve whoever you want but as long as religion is a protected status y'all should stop whining because someone is treated the same. Makes you look kinda pathetic.

 

That's correct. Now please show me where, on their own website,....
http://www.timbercreekbb.com/
...they state "We reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals."

You won't find it because it isn't there. Why isn't it there?


What they do say...

TimberCreek is serious about hosting your wedding and reception! We specialize in creating wonderful outdoor country weddings, memorable for you and your guests. ... We are accommodating and flexible.​

I guess they don't understand what accommodating and flexible means.

 

We'll yes it used to be you did not have sex until you were married and the marriage celebrated you would now. The father giving away his daughter after having protected her till now, the rings for anyone else to see to know this person is married do not tresspass. We as a society use legal encourage and support and sanction heterosexuality because of its vital necessity to nor only our society but to our species. We don't do it just because its a nice thing to do.

Yea the question is should a Muslim be required to great an artistic work celebrating Christianity.

What states still have blue laws? But youvask the wrong question, how about should the government force Chic-fil-a to remain open on Sunday because non-Christians want a sandwich?

And should they? What about a Muslim owned having to allow a Hannakuh celebration?

How about the local black church that has a hall they rent out and provide the kitchen and food and refreshments in the deal should they have to rent to and host the local KKK Christmas party?

 

there is no language in the license that allows one to practice their religion through the license, and just try to throw someone out because of their hair

 

Marriage is a civil contract. You can continue your ceremony as prescribed in your religious beliefs but that does not impact legal reasoning.

No, I don't think they should - I don't agree with involuntary servitude - but under the current system they may be forced to do so.

No, Chic-fil-a should be able to dictate their hours. I don't think they should be able to refuse to serve anyone without just cause (e.g. a violent or belligerent customer) during their normal operational hours. So no, I didn't ask the wrong question.

What states still have blue laws? They are prescribed into law throughout towns, cities, and counties in various states throughout the Bible Belt.

See my previous answer - it didn't change

Again, you believe I want everyone around the country to be forced to serve homosexuals - I do not - inetead I want the laws applied equally which is something your side is completely uninterested in. You want, no, you demand special protections and accommodation in all facets of legal principal. If you cannot refuse service to one group, you should not be able to refuse it to another group.

 

One can figure out why entirely if one wants. I've no particular inclination to. As to the rest of your post, I have no idea what you mean.

 

Wrong again. Consent laws are designed specifically to stop children from marrying or entering sexual relationships just like laws banning gay marriage stopping gays from marrying. You can't pick and choose based on nothing.

Your excuse is laughable since no wording exists in the 14th amendment that says if it applies to all sexual preferences you can keep that law. You are fabricating justification based on your own personal morality.

Nothing in the 14th amendment section 1 defines a person as an adult. Once again you are fabricating justification that doesn't exist in the document you are referencing.

Actually it is. You refuse to admit the 14th amendment does not define a person as an adult or does it define any number of individuals from receiving this new right the court fabricated based on the wording in the 14th amendment.

[/quote]

So now that your argument has been defeated you want to pretend I wanted this? I never wanted gay marriage justified by this amendment because I knew the Pandora's box it would open and was smart enough to see it. The very reason the amendment process exists is to avoid stupid mistakes like this. Now that its open you have to deal with the consequences. The only way your argument works is if you define a person as an adult but the 14th amendment never does that which is why you have lost this argument.

 

No idea about the Bible. However, I'm quite sure that the primary objective is to make a political noise, not simply to get married. If the objective was purely marriage then they would choose amenable collaborators, they wouldn't push people to bend to their requirements who clearly don't want to.

 

Because nothing in the 14th amendment defines a person as an adult. That's what you still can't comprehend for some reason. You can't pick and choose what laws ban sexual prefences from gaining this new marriage right you support if the justification you are using only defines the right for a person not an age limit.

You lost this before it even begun because of that.

 

I've heard the "you don't like gays? So you're a closet gay yourself" too often to think it's anything less than your stock response to dissidents.

 

You don't understand the 14th Amendment.

 

Point is, your personal opinion doesn't mean squat.
Many things can be found repugnant by many different people.

 

Probably. Showing the world who the bigots are.
If one doesn't want to be labeled as such, they shouldn't be as such.