I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

[RoosGirl]

Okay, fine.  I have no beef with God.  It's his self-appointed proxies, who think they're serving God by treating their neighbors like garbage,  that I object to.

Oh, you know what?  Then you and everyone else who has a problem don't have to spend your money in their stores.  Problem solved.

[INVAR]

Okay, fine.  I have no beef with God.  It's his self-appointed proxies, who think they're serving God by treating their neighbors like garbage,  that I object to.

I object to those who call evil good, and good an evil - and then ram that down our throats by empowering the government to put guns to our heads and force us to participate in their wickedness.

[Jazzhead]

Well, @Jazzhead, we were fine and communicating well until you went back in and modified your original comment.   

Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine.   The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast.   Apparently the latter's not an actionable insult but the former is.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh, you know what?  Then you and everyone else who has a problem don't have to spend your money in their stores.  Problem solved.

The problem would be solved if the @Jazzheads of the world would quit trying to prevent anybody else from spending money in their stores.  They are anti-freedom, and think that's a wonderful thing, forcing people into their definition of "tolerance and acceptance."

What appalls me is there are people who insist on redefining "conservatism" and "Christianity" to justify it.  The most insane arguments by liberals start with "If you were a TRUE Christian/conservative, you would agree that (insert absurd argument here)." 

[Cyber Liberty]

Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine.   The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast.   Apparently the latter's not an actionable insult but the former is.   

Sounds awful!  I assume you reported his post?

[Sanguine]

Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine.   The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast.   Apparently the latter's not an actionable insult but the former is.   

Banned you?  So, how are you here.....?

[goatprairie]

The problem would be solved if the @Jazzheads of the world would quit trying to prevent anybody else from spending money in their stores.  They are anti-freedom, and think that's a wonderful thing, forcing people into their definition of "tolerance and acceptance."

What appalls me is there are people who insist on redefining "conservatism" and "Christianity" to justify it.  The most insane arguments by liberals start with "If you were a TRUE Christian/conservative, you would agree that (insert absurd argument here)."

Jazzhead is confusing something that is popular from something that is good or moral.
"See, homosexuality/homosexual marriage is becoming more and more popular...especially with younger people" say Jazzhead and many other homosexuality-is-normal proponents.
Yes,  and liking socialism and repealing the Ist amendment is also becoming very popular with many younger people.
Slavery was pretty popular at one point in the not too distant past.
But that is still not the issue...the issue is forcing a business to make something they don't want to make. That is a form of slavery.  Jazzhead does not seem to get that through his head.

[INVAR]

Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine.   The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast. 

You're PROMOTING a Mark of the Beast.  I didn't say a thing about you bearing it.

And - did the Mods actually BAN you or 'admonish' you?

I see you posting here today - so I think the word 'ban' does not apply as you intend it to be accepted.

[Cyber Liberty]

Jazzhead is confusing something that is popular from something that is good or moral.
"See, homosexuality/homosexual marriage is becoming more and more popular...especially with younger people" say Jazzhead and many other homosexuality-is-normal proponents.
Yes,  and liking socialism and repealing the Ist amendment is also becoming very popular with many younger people.
Slavery was pretty popular at one point in the not too distant past.
But that is still not the issue...the issue is forcing a business to make something they don't want to make. That is a form of slavery.  Jazzhead does not seem to get that through his head.

He thinks we live in a Democracy, and the majority rules.  The Founders were revolted at the prospect, and said so many times.

[Cyber Liberty]

You're PROMOTING a Mark of the Beast.  I didn't say a thing about you bearing it.

And - did the Mods actually BAN you or 'admonish' you?

I see you posting here today - so I think the word 'ban' does not apply as you intend it to be accepted.

Apparently this is the post that worked our friend up so much:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281557.msg1455350.html#msg1455350

You did not accuse him of "bearing the Mark of the Beast."  In fact, in the context of the post (there were several posts there, I reviewed them) you were explaining what that means, and how it applies to this case.  Paraphrased, "One must bear the Mark of the Beast in order to do/be in business."  That is what the Government is doing here, and the analogy is a sound one.

[INVAR]

Apparently this is the post that worked our friend up so much:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281557.msg1455350.html#msg1455350

You did not accuse him of "bearing the Mark of the Beast."  In fact, in the context of the post (there were several posts there, I reviewed them) you were explaining what that means, and how it applies to this case.  Paraphrased, "One must bear the Mark of the Beast in order to do/be in business."  That is what the Government is doing here, and the analogy is a sound one.

All liberal Leftists take any views and beliefs contrary to their own as a personal offense, and accuse them of whatever they can accuse them of to either shame them into silence or force them to be silenced.

Asserting he was banned was for the purpose of attempting to smear the mod staff of being unfair.

Again, the Liberals know that repeating a lie over and over and over again, eventually gets accepted as truth. Which is why Jazzhead sounds like a broken record all the time, pushing the same stupid talking points, despite the fact the members here have already flushed his position down the commode after showing it to be excrement.  He simply poops more out of his mouth and smears it on the walls telling us we have to smell it and see it, eventually assuming we will just accept his excrement as wallpaper.

He advocates a harsh tyranny intended to force Americans to surrender their beliefs and consciences to serve an immorality it has championed as preferable and good.  Under the guise of punishing bigotry, he will establish bigotry by power of the state to impose HIS immorality upon those who refuse to surrender their beliefs, their persons and their property to participate and celebrate that immorality.

An insidious tyranny these shores have never experienced until now.

[Cyber Liberty]

All liberal Leftists take any views and beliefs contrary to their own as a personal offense, and accuse them of whatever they can accuse them of to either shame them into silence or force them to be silenced.

Asserting he was banned was for the purpose of attempting to smear the mod staff of being unfair.

Again, the Liberals know that repeating a lie over and over and over again, eventually gets accepted as truth. Which is why Jazzhead sounds like a broken record all the time, pushing the same stupid talking points, despite the fact the members here have already flushed his position down the commode after showing it to be excrement.  He simply poops more out of his mouth and smears it on the walls telling us we have to smell it and see it, eventually assuming we will just accept his excrement as wallpaper.

He advocates a harsh tyranny intended to force Americans to surrender their beliefs and consciences to serve an immorality it has championed as preferable and good.  Under the guise of punishing bigotry, he will establish bigotry by power of the state to impose HIS immorality upon those who refuse to surrender their beliefs, their persons and their property to participate and celebrate that immorality.

An insidious tyranny these shores have never experienced until now.

I wouldn't say it's never been like this...there have been people trying to distort and subvert our form of government before the ink was dry on the Constitution, most of it could be seen at that time as honest disagreement.  Burr and Hamilton had a very vigorous disagreement about central banking, arguably a bitter argument that would have been construed as about the Mark of the Beast (gotta do business through the Central Bank or you don't do business).

Leftists are just this century's manifestation of a fight that's been going on since well before the Revolution (I don't like calling them "liberal" because they are actually quite illiberal).  What's frustrating is we have people who are trying to redefine what it means to be Christian or conservative, as a means of persuading us they believe as we do, when they are as far away from us as can be.  It's an Alinsky tactic.

The circle talking, and ignoring points made by others is just the icing on the cake that gets people putting him on "Ignore."

@Jazzhead courtesy ping.

[DiogenesLamp]

I say it doesn't have anything to do with morality and that the gov't has no place in forcing any business to serve any individual.

What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?   

[Sanguine]

All liberal Leftists take any views and beliefs contrary to their own as a personal offense, and accuse them of whatever they can accuse them of to either shame them into silence or force them to be silenced.

Asserting he was banned was for the purpose of attempting to smear the mod staff of being unfair.

Again, the Liberals know that repeating a lie over and over and over again, eventually gets accepted as truth. Which is why Jazzhead sounds like a broken record all the time, pushing the same stupid talking points, despite the fact the members here have already flushed his position down the commode after showing it to be excrement.  He simply poops more out of his mouth and smears it on the walls telling us we have to smell it and see it, eventually assuming we will just accept his excrement as wallpaper.

He advocates a harsh tyranny intended to force Americans to surrender their beliefs and consciences to serve an immorality it has championed as preferable and good.  Under the guise of punishing bigotry, he will establish bigotry by power of the state to impose HIS immorality upon those who refuse to surrender their beliefs, their persons and their property to participate and celebrate that immorality.

An insidious tyranny these shores have never experienced until now.

So ignore him.  Or, calmly point out his errors.  Both of you sound like Chillingworths, summoning up hellfire and damnation from opposite sides of the argument.

[Jazzhead]

He thinks we live in a Democracy, and the majority rules.  The Founders were revolted at the prospect, and said so many times.

No, I think we live in a nation that's governed by the rule of law.  Laws against discrimination in public accommodations are intended to protect minorities, not majorities.   And here,  the tenet is even more simple and fundamental -  if you advertise to provide a service, be true to your word.   A law shouldn't be even necessary to compel that code of fair dealing.   

[Cyber Liberty]

What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?

The law preventing that sounded like a good idea at the time, but the meaning of it has been stretched from protecting racial minorities (an immutable trait) to protecting aberrant behaviors (something not obvious to an impartial observer, most times).  Therefore, I'd have to say it's not an apt analogy.

[Free Vulcan]

What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?

To me there is person, and action. Though I disagree with homosexuality and some 'Christians' don't accept blacks, I don't think simple personhood should allow for discrimination something completely unrelated to who you are. In other words, being black should put you at the back of the bus, not get served lunch, or buy a hammer at the hardware store.

When you start getting into things like events and actions and causes, that gets different. While I wouldn't refuse a black person service, I would refuse to serve a Black Panther event in my business for any kind of custom creative work. Even if I advertise that service, for the simply reason that I'm lending material support to a racist and historically violent organization.

Same with gays. I wouldn't refuse service to a gay person or couple buying napkins, cards, or renting tables to their wedding off the shelf. But to create something with my talents like a custom wedding cake or even catering - no dice.

Now with say a mixed marriage wedding, that could get dicey. Some people think different races marry according to religious beliefs. While most don't think that way, how far do you push them to conform to it?

I wish SCOTUS would draw a clear line. While I believe in being as non-discriminatory as possible, there is a point where the customer is pushing their morality on me, and using the govt to do it. How that squares with the 1st or the 14th amendments is beyond me.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, I think we live in a nation that's governed by the rule of law.  Laws against discrimination in public accommodations are intended to protect minorities, not majorities.   And here,  the tenet is even more simple and fundamental -  if you advertise to provide a service, be true to your word.   A law shouldn't be even necessary to compel that code of fair dealing.

No, a law should not be necessary, and it wouldn't be if you weren't trying to force people to do something they find morally objectionable.  Back in the days of the military Draft, we recognized there were individuals who were morally compelled to refuse to fight in a war.  Today, we are not willing to extend to people who bake cakes that same courtesy, and should just "bake the damned cake."

In this argument, I have heard you say both that you would be OK if the bakery advertised "We won't cater same-sex marriages," and "bakeries should not be allowed to refuse any business to homosexuals."  (I would agree with you the second of those two things would be immoral, but also irrelevant.)  To be able to hold both of these points of view requires you to assume the participants in a same-sex marriage are homosexuals, the reason for the refusal of business is because of that, and it's been pointed out you are making improper assumptions that could lead some people to believe you're a bigot.  You're also said advertising the inability to provide the special cake would not immunize the bakery, in direct contradiction to your earlier post

Meanwhile, the owner of the bakery has stated that he sells goods to homosexuals all the time, he just doesn't want to bake a special product for a same-sex marriage.  The T-Shirt maker at the top of this thread has homosexuals in his employ, yet is in the cross-hairs of a similar law.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, I think we live in a nation that's governed by the rule of law.  Laws against discrimination in public accommodations are intended to protect minorities, not majorities.   

Do you think businesses should be compelled to serve people who are insane? 

[DiogenesLamp]

The law preventing that sounded like a good idea at the time, but the meaning of it has been stretched from protecting racial minorities (an immutable trait) to protecting aberrant behaviors (something not obvious to an impartial observer, most times).  Therefore, I'd have to say it's not an apt analogy.

People called Barry Goldwater a racist for his opposition to the civil rights act of 1964.   Barry was perceptive enough to realize that such a law would be abused,  just as it has been. 


Racial discrimination is a bad thing,  but a worse thing is government forcing us to accept the newest version of morality they want to shove down our throats. 


In the Civil Rights act of 1964,  A lesser principle was advanced to the detriment of a greater principle.

[INVAR]

So ignore him.  Or, calmly point out his errors. 

Nope.  We already did the ignore thing to the wannabe tyrants, now those pushing tyranny assert they can force it down our throats with a gun to our heads.

And the 'calm' thing was a wasted exercise in futility.  You cannot be reasonable with the unreasonable.  I'm a "bigot" needing to be punished simply because my conscience and faith regards homosexual perversion a sin.  Daring to calmly refuse demands we cater and serve that lifestyle results in the very tyranny Philips himself is suffering at the hands of those like Jazzhead who advocate using the state to impose their will to force compliance with tyranny and to punish those who refuse to comply to great applause.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you think businesses should be compelled to serve people who are insane?

I think gun shops are specifically allowed to refuse service to people they judge to be insane.

[roamer_1]

What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?

Therein lies the crux, and the mistake.
No doubt the feel-good knee-jerk response will be to approve of such coercion, but I think it unconscionable - Every bit as unconscionable as curtailing free speech.

Do I agree with the KKK? Absolutely in no way.
Do I think it wrong to refuse to serve a person based solely on the color of their skin? Absolutely I do, and it is furthermore as insane a business proposition as there is.

But like with speech, we are experiencing the unintended consequence of limiting the rights of a business owner standing in the midst of his own property.

My business is very much an extension of my home and of my person. There should be no controlling factor other than me. If my mindset causes me to do things that harm my ability to conduct business, invariably I will pay for that in the open market, causing failure, and that should be punishment enough.

[DiogenesLamp]

Therein lies the crux, and the mistake.
No doubt the feel-good knee-jerk response will be to approve of such coercion, but I think it unconscionable - Every bit as unconscionable as curtailing free speech.

Do I agree with the KKK? Absolutely in no way.
Do I think it wrong to refuse to serve a person based solely on the color of their skin? Absolutely I do, and it is furthermore as insane a business proposition as there is.

But like with speech, we are experiencing the unintended consequence of limiting the rights of a business owner standing in the midst of his own property.

My business is very much an extension of my home and of my person. There should be no controlling factor other than me. If my mindset causes me to do things that harm my ability to conduct business, invariably I will pay for that in the open market, causing failure, and that should be punishment enough.

Exactly.  Well Stated. 

[Free Vulcan]

The problem that the Left doesn't want to deal with is this idea of protected classes of people that you can't discriminate against in any way shape or form. Not only do they give these groups near free reign, they keep adding classes that keep getting more and more dubious and narrowly defined.

They do this under the guise of the 14th amendment, yet the effect is that some groups end up 'more equal' than others, and are not bound to the same rules they expect from the unprotected classes. It certainly is not equal when I can't refuse a cake for a gay couple, but could say for a Satanist, or even say what happened to a former girlfriend who was legally shotgunned into a marriage at 15 to a guy that was 33 y/o at the time. Are they not all equal under the 14th amendment?

And what about the 1st? Why are their beliefs more morally valid than mine? How can a govt under the guise of separation of Chuch and State dictate one morality over another? It becomes more ludicrous when talking about transsexuality, where the is zero science, and everything is based on belief and psychology. How is their belief of 'identity' more valid than someone's religious belief?

This is what has not be rectified in the courts. There is no balance, no real equality or freedom of belief as it stands now, and it's what irks Christians and conservatives so much.