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

Which law specifically was broken?
You know in the case of the bakers, they wouldn't have broken a law in many other states. But they did in the one they promised to follow the law when they applied for their business license.

 

Doubtful. A business owner doesn't have to serve all. They can refuse service to most anyone. No shirts, no shoes, no service.
There are a few classes of people that can't be discriminated against. You probably heard of the 6 or so classes.

 

You can claim the moon is made of cheese. It is a worthless claim.

 

Federal Civil Rights act.

 

Why should there be any angst over this?

She did not attack the people or their right to be married. She attacked the venue which she viewed as, at best, racially insensitive of not outright racist.

 

The purpose is to highlight the hypocrisy of the people who wanted Christians to serve everyone. They claimed Christians must set aside their beliefs and serve everyone, yet are engaged in all kinds of logical gymnastics to allow this woman to use her beliefs to refuse service. It seems there is an anti-religious motivation, not an equality motivation.

 

Not my entire argument no. If we're not going to expect everyone to obey the law though, there's no point in having it at all (and that includes your constitution). In that case nobody would need to worry about who you're willing to serve or accommodate - if they're more powerful that you, they'd just take what they want from you regardless. I'd rather live in a civilised society though and that requires rules.

That's not the issue in this thread. This thread is about the lie that the quoted story is the same as one involving active discrimination. If you wanted to make your constitutional argument against anti-discrimination laws, you should have said so when you started the thread.

 

I don't know who "they" is. I know there's been people who refused to provide services because the couple was gay but, please show me someone else who denied services because they didn't like the venue. I'm reasonably certain (and, really, you guys need to move toward that "reason" thing) if they moved the event this "problem" would disappear.

You guys would still be defending hate and bigotry but this issue would be gone.

 

Which part. That's a pretty big act.

 

If you were trying gymnastic moves, I would give you a 10. But this thread it a pathetic stretch. The woman is refusing service to EVERYONE, regardless of race, sex or anything else, at THAT location. It's like trying to compare a case where someone is refusing to cater ANY wedding in Portland when the business is located in Dallas.

 

Total BS. To apply your logic, the Christian baker in Denver is rejecting EVERYONE who wants to have a homosexual "marriage" in THAT location (Denver). See how stupid your argument is? But at least we see that your enforcement of accommodation laws is politically and emotionally targeted at Christians.

 

Oh another libertarian whiner who cannot handle the change from 19th century American thought on 'private property rights' to twentieth and twenty-first century thought on these issues. Guess what. Business is going to be regulated. Government will regulate for the safety of workers, the public welfare of communities, the safety of consumers, and the environment. You cannot fire employees who want to unionize anymore. You cannot force workers to use toxic chemicals without them knowing. You cannot sell unrefrigerated beef anymore. You cannot turn your business into a fire trap anymore. You cannot dump your sludge waste into the closest stream either. And you cannot discriminate based on race when hiring or serving the public. That is because the Supreme Court is not full of libertarian crackpots anymore.

 

The belief need not be set aside by the business owner. he can hold any belief he chooses. he can cuddle the belief and nurture it and masturbate thinking about those Christian beliefs. Its just that Government ignores that belief's existence as irrelevant, when it interprets the statute and penalty .

 

The woman refused to plan the wedding because it was being held on a plantation.
Not because she was a Christian.
I find her reasoning bizarre, but as she didn't turn down the job because the couple were white, gay or disabled then she hasn't broken any law.

 

I'm amazed any Black wedding planner would have enough clients to stay in business.

Black children born to married parents are a unique rarity these days.

 

Another ignorant snowflake outraged by a word she does not understand:

Definition of plantation

1. 1: a usually large group of plants and especially trees under cultivation
   
   
2. 2: a settlement in a new country or region Plymouth Plantation
   
   
3. 3a : a place that is planted or under cultivationb : an agricultural estate usually worked by resident labor
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plantation

Are you offended by plants? Are you offended by trees because some Blacks were hanged from them years ago?

 

You're assuming a black wedding planner would only serve black customers? Most people don't think the same way you do.

 

Think about what you just posted - do black NFL players only play games for black crowds? Think - then post.

 

I'm amazed you typed that by yourself.

 

Most people are aware of reality.

Certainly a Black snowflake who would freak out on the mere mention of a "plantation" would likely be a Black Supremacist.

 

I'm just stating the facts, the rarity of Black couples even bothering to wed.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39993685/...ggle-percent-unwed-mothers-rate/#.WO-uv0XysdU

Is the above hate speech, or a thought crime???

 

You make the typical mistake of someone who has no argument - you claim its all or nothing, its either all the regulation and oversight that you want, or total anarchy. That's a fools argument. Conservatives want smaller government, not no government.

The removal of accommodation laws does not mean anarchy, or the loss of civil rights. It means smaller government.

 

I took you for a libertarian. I recognize that there may be some distinction you make, by which civil rights laws should exclude sections governing accommodation but continue to ban discrimination in housing and employment, if that is your position, but that still represents a loss of civil rights with respect to accommodation. It means that we can go back to White Only lunch counters and hotels that will refuse to rent rooms to Hispanics , and refuse to serve people who are Jewish or people who may be perceived as Jewish, etc. I can't see that as anything but a loss of civil rights.

 

You make a fundamental error. You assume the removal of accommodation laws means a return to Jim Crow - you are still in the "all or nothing" mindset.

Remember, Jim Crow was not nationwide, and it was racism sanctioned and enforced by the local and state governments of a handful of states. Before the Civil Rights Acts were passed (1960's), and before there were any accommodation laws, most states were fairly well integrated.

I do not support govt sanctioned or govt sponsored discrimination, but I have no problem with a particular business owner refusing service to a class of people. Its his property, he can serve or not serve whoever he chooses. If a business owner says she won't serve Christians, or gays, or people who carry a firearm, or white people, or rich people, that's fine by me. Its her property, she built the business out of her time and labor and money, she can operate it the way she wants to.

If a hotel refuses to rent to Hispanics, the hotel next door will be glad to take the Hispanic market. That's the way markets work.

 

And you ignore history.
When a group of influential businessmen refuse service to a minority - we often see ALL businessmen refuse the same service in fear of alienation from the first group. Then you get wide-spread segregation and poverty.