OK Libs, Black Wedding Planner refuses service......

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...and_for_the_right_to_plantation_weddings.html

Will Liberals Stand for the ‘Right’ to Plantation Weddings?

It seems that Jordan A. Maney is not as committed to “diversity” and “love” as she would have us believe. Recently, Ms. Maney, the black owner of a San Antonio event planning business, “All The Days Event Co.,” got a bit upset when she was asked to plan the wedding for a couple whose chosen venue contained the word “plantation.”​

Of course, built in 2011, strictly for the purpose of hosting weddings, Kendall Plantation has never had anything to do with slavery. Yet, like many who are so easily offended in these sensitive times, the mere mention of “plantation” was enough to rile Ms. Maney.

Furthermore, after rejecting her plantation client, Maney went to her Facebook page, and in a post that is no longer available, declared (yes, in all caps):

“DON’T CALL MY BLACK-OWNED BUSINESS ASKING ME TO PLAN YOUR PLANTATION WEDDING.”​

Shall we expect massive outrage from all the people who screamed that Christians have to accommodate LGBT's? Is Maney going to be deluged with phone calls and social media complaints?

Or is she going to be praised and supported? Is all of the furor about "accommodation" really just a way for the gay mob and the "progressives" to attack Christianity?

 

So if Mrs. Maney is a Christian business owner (odds are, she is), aren't you now trying to attack a Christian for standing up for her morals?

Personally, I think people need to start taking care with their original business plans to assure they can morally accept the laws they are going to have to operate under - if not, they need to reevaluate their business.

 

Wow, you really don't read.

Maney supports the LGBT agenda, she makes no claim at all to being a Christian.

 

What she did was extremely bigoted and her race doesn't change that fact. In the same way an African American refusing to server an Asian should be just as illegal as a white refusing to serve an African American, or an African American refusing to serve a gay, or a white refusing to serve a gay.

 

Read the civil rights statutes that govern that jurisdiction. If there is language turning couples that want to be married at the Plantation into a protected class, you will see outrage.

 

The couple should consider themselves lucky. There are loads of 'wedding planners.'

Always best to avoid doing business with an idiot.

 

I’m sure you can make it happen if you really want to.

I doubt it. I suspect she’d generally be recognised as the idiot she is, though some people will try to spin something political out of it in the opposite direction to the way you and your source did.

Of course, you’re also failing to recognise the difference between refusing to run any event at a particular location for anyone (however ignorant the reasons) and refusing to provide a standard service to a particular group of people (however ignorant the reasons).

 

The vast majority of black Americans are Christians and a considerable percentage are fine with gay weddings. So there is a better than average possibility that you are attacking a Christian business.

 

By your logic, you would support slavery since it was legal for many decades. Your hypocrisy is well noted.

 

Stick to the facts. You are making wild assumptions in a desperate quest to justify your persecution of Christians.

 

Here is the most notable fact, and I don't know the answer in this case, but, were laws broken?

 

Fact.

Jordan Maney - also works as communication director at Children at Heart Ministries - from her Linked-In page.
So you ARE attacking a Christian run business.

 

Unknown, but that's not the issue.

When Christians refused to participate in gay weddings, people in this forum attacked the Christians claiming that a privately owned business must serve everyone, and business owners must set their beliefs aside when it comes to the operation of their business.

Now we have a black woman who runs a wedding planning business, and she refuses to serve a wedding because she is offended because the name of the wedding location invokes (to her) the context of slavery. By the logic used to attack the Christians, this black woman should not be allowed to refuse service due to her offense at being associated with slavery (no matter how removed she actually is from slavery).

And now those same people who made those arguments against Christians are dodging the issue when it comes to a black woman and perceived issues of slavery.

 

Very good, you actually did some outside reading. But it looks like she no longer works there.

But her religion is not the issue, and that's not the question raised in this OP. As I have always stated, accommodation laws are unconstitutional. A person should be allowed to create a private business and serve whoever they want to serve, and deny service to whoever they want to deny - a gay business owner can refuse to serve Christians or can decide to only serve other gays, a Christian can refuse to serve a gay or muslim, a black woman can refuse to serve people at a particular venue.

Its their property (their business), they can do whatever they want with it.

This is the issue in this OP (previous response):

 

And again - while I think her decision is wrong - she is not acting prejudicial toward a PERSON. She has prejudice against A LOCATION.
Your weak attempt at proving some type of correlation between the two cases is just that - weak.
Your thread is a fail.

 

Then you don't understand my logic. There is no protected class here, or any class here you may want to protect from discrimination, because there is no group of people like her that are being mistreated on a pervasive scale by society because of the name of the venue where they want to hold a wedding. How do you plan on writing this 'addition' to the civil rights statute to cover this ?

 

Nope, wrong again! It's easy to play this little game if you misidentify the original problem. First Christians were not attacked. People who refused to obey the civil rights statutes were attacked. Second nobody said anyone's beliefs had to be set aside. they said those beliefs are irrelevant when determining if civil rights statutes are broken and if a penalty should be imposed for breaking the law. Third. nobody said a privately owned business must serve everyone. There are specific protected classes of people, which may not be refused service simply because they are members of that protected class.

 

I am just going to have to say you have a horrible memory. Most all said they broke a law. Which is true.
You don't always need to make stuff up.

 

No, you're wrong (or wilfully lying).

All privately owned businesses are required to follow the laws and regulations that apply where they operate. It isn't Christian's being prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals, everyone is. After all, lots of Christians are perfectly happy to serve homosexuals or even support same-sex weddings and lots of non-Christians object strongly and would want to refuse service if they could.

Whether the individual owners or staff of a business agree with those laws and regulations or they contradict those individuals personal, social or religious beliefs isn't relevant, regardless of the basis of their objection. Nobody can say "Well that's against my beliefs!" and simply ignore a law they don't like. Every citizen is entitled to make legal arguments against the application of the law or political arguments for laws to be changed but as long as they're legitimately in place, we all have to follow them.

But she isn't discriminating against any generically defined group of people. She would apparently refuse to run an event at that location for anyone but would run an event for the same people at a different location. Her rationale for the objection is stupid but the fundamental principle and practical consequence is entirely different. Your attempt to link the two scenarios is a failure.

 

You have it completely backwards.

My position is that accommodation laws are a violation of property rights (property is your time, wealth, skills, body, effort, as well as your material property) and a violation of the Constitution. There is no "addition" to law required, other than the repeal of accommodation laws and regulations.

The purpose of this OP is to point out that the same non-legal arguments used to force Christians to violate their religious rights apply to this case of a black woman refusing service because her sense of integrity over the nations history of slavery.

And as this OP shows, these people who opposed the Christians are bending over backwards to support this womans refusal to serve others.

 

"...Second nobody said anyone's beliefs had to be set aside. they said those beliefs are irrelevant when determining if civil rights statutes are broken and if a penalty should be imposed for breaking the law. ..."
You contradict yourself, and defeat your own argument.

 

Go back and read those threads. I remember them because I made the same argument there that I make here - accommodation laws are unconstitutional - and many posters resorted to non-legal arguments (a public business must serve all, a business owner must set aside their beliefs while running their business, businesses use "infrastructure" and must serve all, etc).

 

Yes. Equal protection under the law. It's not a one way street. The fact that said wedding planner was "triggered" doesn't alleviate them from their responsibility to uphold the law.

 

Your entire argument is summed up as follows: its the law, and you must obey.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether accommodation laws are constitutional. I claim they are unconstitutional, they violate property rights and religious rights, the law is wrong. You simply claiming "its the law" while ignoring the real issue is pointless.

 

You've never proved christian rights were violated. And you can't. The law didn't say christians have to serve gays, it says all business have to serve gays. There are no christians when it comes to secular law. Just the law.