Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
so offering money to a wedding service business to have a wedding is "imposing upon them"?

that's as retarded as anything i've heard on this site.

Demanding they perform a ceremony that goes beyond their beliefs is imposing. Even a retard understands that. :dunce:

They were more than willing to take their money for the reception.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Demanding they perform a ceremony that goes beyond their beliefs is imposing.
the gay couple was well within their legal rights to ask for a ceremony in exchange for money.

in case you forgot, demand for your services is a good thing when you're running a business, not a bad thing.
 

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Maybe others can simply accept/respect the beliefs of their fellow man and not impose upon them. There is more than one place to hold a wedding. Pretty simple solution, don't you think?
I tend to think "accepting/respecting the beliefs of others" might go against the fundamental basis of "faith." At least that's how those who use their "faith" as their reasoning mechanism seem to behave.

I find it troubling that such "faiths" are so widespread, and even protected as a "right," by a government claiming to embrace "freedom" and "equality."

I think, if anyone wants to believe something that causes them to behave injuriously to others, that belief and the resulting actions, should Not be protected... but, they shouldn't be penalized merely for a belief; only for acting injuriously... although at some point we kinda have to consider whether any particular belief "tends" to lead the believer into injurious actions.

Should those believing something not discernibly true, be "allowed" to hold apparently fictitious beliefs, when those beliefs lead them to harm or discriminate against others? Hmm... "allowed" might not be the right word. I guess as long as they're not harming anyone in the name of their imaginary friend, it should be okay... but then we have to carefully define what "harming others" actually means, which gets murky pretty quickly, in many cases. It's possible for one person to indirectly harm another, through means other than violence, and based on unjustifiable prejudice.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
WTF is that supposed to mean?
You talk like a politician.
are you not smart enough to know what this means?

i believe that because you were not smart enough to make a proper analogy in the first place.

right wing extremism is not a protected status. race and gender and (in some states) sexual orientation are, but political views are not.
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
are you not smart enough to know what this means?

i believe that because you were not smart enough to make a proper analogy in the first place.

right wing extremism is not a protected status. race and gender and (in some states) sexual orientation are, but political views are not.
No problem.
Hook me up with a bag of your finest weed.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
No problem.
Hook me up with a bag of your finest weed.
get in line.

i've seen the buds you have posted. you could not afford my finest, especially with your jealousy over hispanics buying "fine seafood" at a local grocer or supermarket.

that is not where one goes for "fine seafood".
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
get in line.

i've seen the buds you have posted. you could not afford my finest, especially with your jealousy over hispanics buying "fine seafood" at a local grocer or supermarket.

that is not where one goes for "fine seafood".
LMAO
YES!
I was following hispanics around the supermarket just yesterday.

You would not believe the fancy proteins, drinks and deserts they purchased with food stamps.
 
Top