Excluding Farmer's Market Vendor for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Weddings

[RileyG]

That's fair, but should that be universal? What if my conscience compels me to be racist? Or to kill? Clearly there have to be limits, and my personal belief is that your freedom to follow your conscience ends when it requires you to harm others (which would include denying them rights that they are legally afforded, such as marriage).

Killing or being racist harms someone. Refusing to give service to a same-sex couple because the business owner feels like their marriage is wrong harms no one. They can simply go somewhere else for services.

 

[RileyG]

Really? Because your post sure seemed to want to give these special law-breaking privileges only to groups you personally agreed with.



So it's OK for people to refuse service to Catholics or black simply because those people feel they should be able to?

What other laws can people break simply because they feel like it?


That decision was made when the business owner freely chose to open a business to the public.

Nope. Again, the event- the marriage- is being denied. Not the person. There's really no need to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.
God bless

 

[Hank77]

Back-in-the-day the conversation would go like this:

I have nothing against homosexuals, but they tend to be promiscuous

Well, they kind of forced into that because we don’t let them get married

Two men cannot be married!

That’s only by convention; if they were allowed to be married, then they wouldn’t be promiscuous

But if we allowed the to be married then how could we still maintain that their lifestyle is evil?

I thought you said you had a problem with their promiscuousness?

They’re homosexuals, that’s all I need to know, I don’t wanna think about this anymore!

You don't think couples can have a monogamous relationship without being married?

adjective
adjective: promiscuous

1. 
   having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.
   
   
   

 

[RileyG]

You don't think couples can have a monogamous relationship without being married?

adjective
adjective: promiscuous

1. 
   having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.
   
   

Promiscuity is rampant in the gay community. I've seen it.

 

[Pommer]

Killing or being racist harms someone. Refusing to give service to a same-sex couple because the business owner feels like their marriage is wrong harms no one. They can simply go somewhere else for services.

Yeah but what if “somewhere else” also doesn’t do these “events”?, what if every bakery in town “doesn’t do these events”?

 

[RileyG]

Yeah but what if “somewhere else” also doesn’t do these “events”?, what if every bakery in town “doesn’t do these events”?

They are bound to find someone.

 

[Pommer]

They are bound to find someone.

Not if “right thinking” (like some are hoping to take effect) predominates.
Cakeless gay weddings will be a “thing” then.

 

[Hank77]

Yeah but what if “somewhere else” also doesn’t do these “events”?, what if every bakery in town “doesn’t do these events”?

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for an LGBTQ+ owned bakery! Storefront and online with delivery service especially in a college town.

When my son was a freshman in college he turned 18 while away at school. We ordered and had the bakery deliver a big birthday cake for him to share with his friends.

 

[Pommer]

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for an LGBTQ+ owned bakery! Storefront and online with delivery service especially in a college town.

When my son was a freshman in college he turned 18 while away at school. We ordered and had the bakery deliver a big birthday cake for him to share with his friends.

We could do away with “public accommodation laws” altogether!
Win-win!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Refusing to give service to a same-sex couple because the business owner feels like their marriage is wrong harms no one. They can simply go somewhere else for services.

Refusing to give service to an interracial couple because the business owner feels like their marriage is wrong harms no one. They can simply go elsewhere for services.

See how this works?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Promiscuity is rampant in the gay community. I've seen it.

It's also rampant in the heterosexual community. I've seen it.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

We could do away with “public accommodation laws” altogether!
Win-win!

I believe that an owner of a private business should have the right to refuse business with anyone that goes against his personal religious beliefs. This cuts both ways though. If an owner of a private business is an atheist or gay and he refuses to serve a member of the Westboro Baptist Church or any other church or religion then he should be allowed to. It's a private business after all and the government should not force him to serve an individual that is offensive to his religious views (or lack thereof). I remember as a child seeing signs in restaurants with signs that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That was back in the sixties and early seventies. However, thanks to the civil rights movement business owners were not allowed to exclude someone from service due to the color of their skin. I agree with that, now that I have gotten older I no longer believe a business owner should refuse service based on the color of their skin. But I still hesitate at forcing people to serve people that is offensive to them if it is due to their religious beliefs. I am referring to private businesses only.

If, on the other hand, someone runs for office and wins, I do not think a person's private religious beliefs should be forced on others. If you can't do the job your constituents voted you in for, then I believe you should resign your position and retire to private life. Kim Davis is an example. She was voted into office to provide marriage licenses to couples who wanted to marry and she flat out refused a marriage license to a gay couple because it offended her Christian beliefs. I did not support her on her position. She had a government position and was obligated to perform her duties despite her religious views. There was a big thing made about this when it happened, but when she went to jail for holding to her beliefs to refuse service to a gay couple she had a large base of support from Christians around the country. However, when she came up with time to run again for her office, she lost a lot of support from voters and they voted her out of office. I was glad to see that because I felt she really made a poor government worker and a hateful Christian.

Since then she has been ordered by a civil court to pay that gay couple thousands of dollars. I am ok with that. She shouldn't have run for an office that would cause her to refuse others their rights due to her religious beliefs.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199477637/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-license-ordered-to-pay-damages

 

[RileyG]

Refusing to give service to an interracial couple because the business owner feels like their marriage is wrong harms no one. They can simply go elsewhere for services.

See how this works?

Comparing race and gay marriage is offensive IMHO. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[RileyG]

It's also rampant in the heterosexual community. I've seen it.

Even Dan Savage, an active homosexual activist, says most gay men are monogamish-don’t commit to a single relationship.

 

[rjs330]

That's fair, but should that be universal? What if my conscience compels me to be racist? Or to kill? Clearly there have to be limits, and my personal belief is that your freedom to follow your conscience ends when it requires you to harm others (which would include denying them rights that they are legally afforded, such as marriage).

You aren't seriously comparing harming and killing others to not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding are you? Requiring harm? What harm? This is a battle of rights. Rights of a religious person guaranteed by the constitution and rights of freedom not to be forced to enter into contracts. The gay couple is free to go somewhere else and still get a wedding cake. It's not remotely the same as racism or killing.

If it were the same as racism they wouldn't serve gays period.

 

[rjs330]

Even Dan Savage, an active homosexual activist, says most gay men are monogamish-don’t commit to a single relationship.

Not to mention that promiscuity among gay men far surpasses that of heterosexuals.

 

[rjs330]

Not if “right thinking” (like some are hoping to take effect) predominates.
Cakeless gay weddings will be a “thing” then.

Just how many Christian bakers are out there refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? How many bakery's are doing that period?

 

[Pommer]

I believe that an owner of a private business should have the right to refuse business with anyone that goes against his personal religious beliefs. This cuts both ways though. If an owner of a private business is an atheist or gay and he refuses to serve a member of the Westboro Baptist Church or any other church or religion then he should be allowed to. It's a private business after all and the government should not force him to serve an individual that is offensive to his religious views (or lack thereof).

This is sorta where I would like to be able to come down on the topic, but what sticks in my craw is, we have made laws to address this issue and the laws are generally “take all comers”.
If an artisan doesn’t want to do gay wedding events? Fine, a placard will be required to announce who they’d like to not come to their store for a gay wedding event for a “one-of-a-kind” work of “art”.

If they want to “stealth discriminate” nah, that plane ain’t flying.

Be upfront about it.

 

[Pommer]

Comparing race and gay marriage is offensive IMHO. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Can you articulate why this comparison has caused you “offense”?

 

[Pommer]

Even Dan Savage, an active homosexual activist, says most gay men are monogamish-don’t commit to a single relationship.

Therefore “no gay wedding events”?
There’s some parts missing, I’m almost sure of it.