Indiana law prompts pizzeria to state they will deny catering to gays/lesbians

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

In the end this all boils down to the following

those who push these kind of things do not want equal treatment
They want special treatment
They (these groups seeking special treatment) can disagree with you all they will. Live with it cup cake
But
Should you push back against them, they will not stand for it
So, they use government and those they have duped through emotions, to push there views and agenda down everyone elses throats via legislatures and courts

And in most cases the legislatures will not help them so they get the courts to create law
This is where we are at today

The pizza place getting over $500 k in support shows (to me anyway) people are getting tired of it

NO it boils down to no such thing as special treatment.

Why do you have such a skewed view of life that affords you the ability to not see that treating EVERYONE fairly and with equanimity is not only Christian( you know.. that which the Lord Jesus Christ taught) but what this country and its constitution is supposed to have guaranteed to ALL of its people.

[champu 1]

LyraM45

Maybe the law needs to be clearer? IE: you are allowed to deny service for a religious ceremony like a wedding, but otherwise you have to serve everybody equally? Lay out in exact detail what services fall under the law instead of letting people run rampant with it, denying even the most basic of services, and do what they want because " 'merica! Religion!"

The idea of the government creating a list of events and items that qualify as "religious enough to refuse" sounds like a cure much worse than the disease. I think a simpler test is that if you have to use an adjective before the item or event when stating your refusal, and that adjective is a protected class, then it's illegal.

A guy walks into a deli and says, "I'd like to cater my son's bar mitzvah with French dip sandwiches." Deli owner says, "Sorry, we don't serve jus."

[LyraM45 0]

champu

***Maybe the law needs to be clearer? IE: you are allowed to deny service for a religious ceremony like a wedding, but otherwise you have to serve everybody equally? Lay out in exact detail what services fall under the law instead of letting people run rampant with it, denying even the most basic of services, and do what they want because " 'merica! Religion!"

The idea of the government creating a list of events and items that qualify as "religious enough to refuse" sounds like a cure much worse than the disease. I think a simpler test is that if you have to use an adjective before the item or event when stating your refusal, and that adjective is a protected class, then it's illegal.

A guy walks into a deli and says, "I'd like to cater my son's bar mitzvah with French dip sandwiches." Deli owner says, "Sorry, we don't serve jus."

Personally I agree with you 100%, but I am just playing devils advocate and saying if there is going to be a law, how could it possibly be made clearer where everybody understands it tries to satisfy both groups? I don't think it can exist, but just trying to think *if* here I guess.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[champu 1]

Understood. I lamented the same problem after the hobby lobby case.

[LyraM45 0]

champu

Understood. I lamented the same problem after the hobby lobby case.

Yep, I had the same troubles, so I def get where you're coming from.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[rushmc 18]

normiss

I think he's referring to religious right that seeks to pass laws in favor of hatred of those they disagree with, but it's almost impossible to determine from that post.

What laws might they be?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

***I think he's referring to religious right that seeks to pass laws in favor of hatred of those they disagree with, but it's almost impossible to determine from that post.

What laws might they be?

Your version of Sharia Law that has arisen in republican controlled state houses across America as they march on towards your glorious theocracy in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsbAba0qLHI

[rushmc 18]

AndyBoyd

***So then. Answer the question I asked of Wendy. The one no one has yet answered. And regardless. What you posted is wrong. But saddly that is what is being pushed

I don't much care what question you asked Wendy. You asserted "as a business or service provider, you have the choice to whom you serve and why." That assertion is clearly and obviously incorrect, because the law very plainly says that business owners do not have that choice when it comes to things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. I take it you don't like that law, and that you disagree with it. Fine. But you cannot make the obviously false factual statement that business ?owners are free to refuse service to blacks, Muslims, gays, if the business owner doesn't like that group. As a country, we got past that crap a long time ago. It's not 1950 anymore. Get over it.

Then a gay lawyer should be forced to represent the Westbourgh Baptist church. Right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

rushmc

Then a gay lawyer should be forced to represent the Westbourgh Baptist church. Right?

The Westboro baptist church likely has no interest in hiring a gay attorney and, assuming their need for an attorney's services was in regards to a so-called "hate speech" case against gays, probably no expectation that a gay attorney would do a good job for them. So even if I said, "yeah sure, if the lawyer was otherwise denying service based on religion (or another protected class), that wouldn't be okay" it's a pretty empty agreement.

Or are you suggesting Fred Phelps was gay?

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

******I think he's referring to religious right that seeks to pass laws in favor of hatred of those they disagree with, but it's almost impossible to determine from that post.

What laws might they be?

Your version of Sharia Law that has arisen in republican controlled state houses across America as they march on towards your glorious theocracy in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsbAba0qLHI

Comparin this stuff to Sharia is like comparing Obama to Stalin. Seriously. Is it really helpful to people to make them think that Sharia isn't that bad?

I'll go ahead and compare making a gay bakery decorate a cake with anti-gay messages to the enslavement of blacks. It's not that it elevates the wrongfulness so much as it devalues the wrongfulness of slavery.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

*********I think he's referring to religious right that seeks to pass laws in favor of hatred of those they disagree with, but it's almost impossible to determine from that post.

What laws might they be?

Your version of Sharia Law that has arisen in republican controlled state houses across America as they march on towards your glorious theocracy in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsbAba0qLHI

Comparin this stuff to Sharia is like comparing Obama to Stalin. Seriously. Is it really helpful to people to make them think that Sharia isn't that bad?

I'll go ahead and compare making a gay bakery decorate a cake with anti-gay messages to the enslavement of blacks. It's not that it elevates the wrongfulness so much as it devalues the wrongfulness of slavery.

Spend much time on Facebook.... it happens every hour of every day... in almost every Compassionate Conservative group.

As far as it not being like Sharia...BZZZZT..... laws based on thousand year old or more desert value systems fostered by religious fundamentalism of bigots is not anywhere near what the Founding Fathers sought to bring to the people of our new country.

[Bolas 5]

LyraM45

Is this the question you're waiting to be answered? I think people's responses would be pretty clear. Mine would be two takes: 1.) if the status quo is nobody can be denied service based on race/religion/creed/sex/sexual orientation, then they would have to provide service to whomever they didn't agree with, which in this case is the gay photographers taking the job of photographing the straight couple who doesn't approve of their lifestyle. or 2.) If laws are in place that say you have to serve a gay couple who walks in to your restaurant for food, but allows you do deny service for their wedding since that then becomes a religious issue (IE: you're OK serving gay people, but not for their union which is where you have the issue based on your religious beliefs), then you are allowed to deny service for the wedding (in this case, deny taking the pictures of the straight couple), because the law would allow people to do that.

Number 2 does not work both ways as it only allows limited discrimination for religious beliefs. What religious belief is the gay couple using for their denial?

The problem here is religion, an arbitrary choice one can make and change at will, should not be considered a protected class.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[AndyBoyd 0]

rushmc

******So then. Answer the question I asked of Wendy. The one no one has yet answered. And regardless. What you posted is wrong. But saddly that is what is being pushed

I don't much care what question you asked Wendy. You asserted "as a business or service provider, you have the choice to whom you serve and why." That assertion is clearly and obviously incorrect, because the law very plainly says that business owners do not have that choice when it comes to things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. I take it you don't like that law, and that you disagree with it. Fine. But you cannot make the obviously false factual statement that business ?owners are free to refuse service to blacks, Muslims, gays, if the business owner doesn't like that group. As a country, we got past that crap a long time ago. It's not 1950 anymore. Get over it.

Then a gay lawyer should be forced to represent the Westbourgh Baptist church. Right?

I think Champu has explained this pretty well, but since you asked me, I'll answer. The Westboro people would not ever want to hire a gay lawyer. They hate gays with every fiber of their souls, assuming they have souls. In the extraordinarily unlikely event they insisted on hiring a gay lawyer, yes, you could make a solid argument that the gay lawyer would be required by law to represent Westboro. I did a quick bit of research and found that law firms do seem to be considered places of public accommodation, subject to the ADA and anti-discrimination laws. Here's a quick blurb from one of the cases I found:

"When Joseph Stropnicky contacted Attorney Nathanson in order to retain her to review his divorce settlement, he became the impetus of a discrimination litigation that would have repercussions throughout the Massachusetts
legal community in the coming years. For the first time, Massachusetts had to confront the question: may a lawyer discriminate against a potential client on the basis of gender? In this case of first impression, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) held
that a law firm is a place of public accommodation, and as such, lawyers are barred from discriminating against potential clients on the basis of a protected class."

Keep in mind that I just did a quick investigation into your question. It was a fair question, and the answer seems to be yes.

[cvfd1399 0]

One of the members gets arrested in a state where they are not licensed to practice law, and no private lawyer in the U.S. will represent them. The public defender is Gay. Now what is the answer.

[AndyBoyd 0]

cvfd1399

One of the members gets arrested in a state where they are not licensed to practice law, and no private lawyer in the U.S. will represent them. The public defender is Gay. Now what is the answer.

It's not real clear from your post who "the members" are, or who "they" are. I assume you are asking about a member of the Westboro church, who is arrested in a state where his or her lawyer is not licensed to practice. If I am misunderstanding your question, I apologize.

Criminal defendants only get a public defender if they are indigent, i.e., they cannot afford a private attorney. The Westboro people are not indigent, and have skilled lawyers who took their case to the United States Supreme Court and won.

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/protests-flash-mobs/facts-case-summary.aspx

Assuming for a moment that a Westboro member had been charged with a crime and was indigent, he would be represented by a public defender. If the public defender was gay, he or she would advocate zealously on behalf of the Westboro member, because that's what is required by the canons of legal ethics.

I'm a public defender, and I don't always like my clients. It doesn't matter. I represent them as best I can because that's my job.

[cvfd1399 0]

That is exactly the scenario. My question is what do you do if all the public defenders are gay, but the WBC members do not want a gay lawyer, does the government force one on them? Are you to go without a lawyer due to your beliefs?

[champu 1]

...still ...yes?

I don't get it, was that supposed to make the analysis more difficult? If anything it makes it easier because the public defender's office certainly can't choose not to represent someone.

[cvfd1399 0]

Just making sure we had all the bases covered.

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

Comparin this stuff to Sharia is like comparing Obama to Stalin.

I KNOW you read Facebook, so clearly you have seen that done a number of times.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreeece 2]

Quote

ALERT!!! - ALERT!!!

[Quarantine] The problem here is religion, an arbitrary choice one can make and change at will, should not be considered a protected class.[Quarantine]

ALERT!!! - ALERT!!!

Sorry bub...I can't let that angry germ out.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

champu

... So even if I said, "yeah sure, if the lawyer was otherwise denying service based on religion (or another protected class), that wouldn't be okay" it's a pretty empty agreement...

Well, if the attorney was denying them service because of their religion, then yes - it would be discrimination.

If the attorney was denying them service because they are assholes who go around insulting and provoking people, then it wouldn't be.

If someone could show that the attorney regularly denied service to religious types, while providing service to provocative, insulting assholes who weren't religious, then any claim of "it's not discrimination" would be questionable.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***

Comparin this stuff to Sharia is like comparing Obama to Stalin.

I KNOW you read Facebook, so clearly you have seen that done a number of times.

yeah. It's totally ridiculous

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyBoyd 0]

cvfd1399

That is exactly the scenario. My question is what do you do if all the public defenders are gay, but the WBC members do not want a gay lawyer, does the government force one on them? Are you to go without a lawyer due to your beliefs?

No, the government does not force a lawyer on anyone. Criminal defendants have the right to proceed "pro se," which means on their own, without a lawyer. If a criminal defendant does not have the $ for a private attorney, and all the public defenders are gay (give me a break dude, what a dumb question), the defendant can represent himself. So yes, in your silly and stupid scenario, if there is a crazy right wing religious nut criminal defendant who does not have enough money to hire a lawyer, and every single public defender in whatever county we are talking about is gay and the crazy right wing religious nut refuses the services of the all gay public defender's office, yes, the crazy right wing religious nut can represent himself.

Any more silly questions?

[Coreeece 2]

AndyBoyd

your silly and stupid scenario

Ya, like a pizza joint catering a gay wedding - It's like ABC tried to find the dumbest example to throw society into a frenzy so as to loose there fucking minds over a stupid hypothetical situation.

AndyBoyd

Any more silly questions?

Ya, I just don't want to participate in a same-sex marriage...I was told that was none of my business.

wattsupwiththat?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[cvfd1399 0]

No you showed your true self quite well, that will be all.