"If you don't support gay marriage, you don't have to get one"

[BamaGrad03 0]

But we will call around, recording each conversation, until we find a business that is run by folks with Christian morals - and sue you for not bending to our knee.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/lesbian_couple_denied_wedding_booking_by_ny_farm_seek_damages_for_discrimination.html

The most ridiculous part about all this is how very accommodating the farm was to this couple - they even said they could host the reception at the farm, just not the wedding. And that they have hosted celebrations for gay couples before, and employed gay folks. They're not anti-gay, but then again, nobody cares about that anymore.

It's not about being discriminated against. It's about completely bending to the knee of someone else's beliefs, while absolutely abandoning your own.

[AUisAll 2]

Can't wait for the first person that demands he be able to marry his dog. How can anyone refuse him that 'right'?

[quietfan 233]

Can't wait for the first person that demands he be able to marry his dog. How can anyone refuse him that 'right'?

This and pedophilia/child marriage have always been the most ridiculous red herrings or reductio ad absurdum arguments in the whole anti-gay marriage platform!

There is zero connection, no slippery slope, and no line to be crossed. Marriage must be between consenting adults, capable of giving their informed consent. Except for arranged marriages in other cultures, I've never heard anyone argue otherwise. It has never been considered a right in our culture to force marriage upon an unwilling spouse, regardless of genders. Animals and children cannot give consent, neither can the dead or inanimate objects, for those who might want to marry their couch. Hence no animal, child, or inanimate spouses and no necrophilia. Until a dog can sign a marriage license application, completely meaningless comparison to gay marriage!

[Aufan59 83]

The farm owners can discriminate based on gender if they want.

But offering their farm to the public as a business means they can't discriminate based on gender.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

[Aufan59 83]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

[Kassc22 0]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

I'm waiting for the lawsuit against a church that refuses to allow a gay wedding. People keep saying that it won't happen, that it is not part of the agenda to force churches to participate but I am not sure I believe that.

[Aufan59 83]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

They don't object to rap music either. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have a right to refuse a party for certain kinds of it.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

Objecting to a gay wedding is objecting to the content of the event, just like objecting to the rapper party with the filthy, degrading lyrics is objecting to the content not the race nor rap music in general.

[Aufan59 83]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

Objecting to a gay wedding is objecting to the content of the event, just like objecting to the rapper party with the filthy, degrading lyrics is objecting to the content not the race nor rap music in general.

What content of the wedding are they objecting to, besides the gender of those involved?

[Weegle777 78]

Why don't they just move on? Why waste their time and resources on revenge? If a person looked at me and said:

"You can't hold your event on my private property because I am an atheist and I don't want Christian events held here."

I would wipe the dust from my shoes and move on. No sense wasting my valuable time on such a mindless idiot.

[leglessdan 1,934]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

Objecting to a gay wedding is objecting to the content of the event, just like objecting to the rapper party with the filthy, degrading lyrics is objecting to the content not the race nor rap music in general.

What content of the wedding are they objecting to, besides the gender of those involved?

c'mon 59....

[AUisAll 2]

Can't wait for the first person that demands he be able to marry his dog. How can anyone refuse him that 'right'?

This and pedophilia/child marriage have always been the most ridiculous red herrings or reductio ad absurdum arguments in the whole anti-gay marriage platform!

There is zero connection, no slippery slope, and no line to be crossed. Marriage must be between consenting adults, capable of giving their informed consent. Except for arranged marriages in other cultures, I've never heard anyone argue otherwise. It has never been considered a right in our culture to force marriage upon an unwilling spouse, regardless of genders. Animals and children cannot give consent, neither can the dead or inanimate objects, for those who might want to marry their couch. Hence no animal, child, or inanimate spouses and no necrophilia. Until a dog can sign a marriage license application, completely meaningless comparison to gay marriage!

So you would deny that persons right to happiness. You _____phobe. If the dog owner signs off on it........

[BamaGrad03 0]

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

I laughed. Christians aren't allowed to object to the content of anything apparently. And apparently what used to be an objection on discrimination of sexuality is now discrimination based on gender. Weird.

Religious freedom is only protected in the constitution and all. But screw all that - we got some social justice warrioring to do.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

I laughed. Christians aren't allowed to object to the content of anything apparently. And apparently what used to be an objection on discrimination of sexuality is now discrimination based on gender. Weird.

That rhetorical sleight of hand came about because he knows that sexual orientation isn't always a protected class depending on the state we're talking about. Moving the goalposts to make it about gender puts it on turf more favorable to his rant.

Religious freedom is only protected in the constitution and all. But screw all that - we got some social justice warrioring to do.

Funny how that works. Apparently, religious freedom is always supposed to bend the knee to whatever cultural fad of the moment comes down the pike. Anytime free exercise of religion and "what I want" come into conflict these days, whether it be gay weddings or birth control, that silly 1st Amendment stuff is supposed to step aside.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Of course, that wasn't what they were doing. It wasn't a person or people that were at issue as the willingness to host the after party/reception demonstrated. It was an event that they took issue with, much like the farm would be more than willing to, for instance, rent the facilities out to black people for a party but wouldn't host one for a black rapper with misogynist, violent and profanity laced lyrics. They wouldn't be turning down the rapper's party based on race, but on the event in question.

The event was a wedding. They obviously don't object to weddings.

I guess facilities that often host rallies can't object to holding a KKK rally. Because, that'd be discrimination against white people.

What I find so incredibly hypocritical with the liberals who have absolutely no problem with all this - they don't give two sh**s about the blatant entrapment and 'gotcha' nature in these cases. Their "_____'s gay wedding doesn't affect you so get on board" was complete BS. The 'aw shucks, you can't deny love' crap was exactly that. At least be HONEST about what you're doing. They knew it then, and that's why they don't care now.

Lie, cheat, steal to get what you want. The ends justify the means. You know, as long as those ends are in lock step with mother liberal's shopping list.

This couple wasn't even targeting an anti-gay couple. They found someone religious, and wanted to punish them for their religion.

Objecting to a KKK rally is objecting to the content of the rally, not objecting to the gender of those involved in the rally.

Objecting to a gay wedding is objecting to the content of the event, just like objecting to the rapper party with the filthy, degrading lyrics is objecting to the content not the race nor rap music in general.

What content of the wedding are they objecting to, besides the gender of those involved?

They object to something being called a wedding that is not a wedding, particularly in that marriage is a holy sacrament/ordinance of the Christian faith. To host a ceremony that seeks to alter that understanding is what they object to. There are many other sorts of marriages that some may seek that would similarly be ruled out that have nothing to do with gender and they should not be required to host those either based on some ginned up notion of discrimination.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The mere fact that this couple conceding to host the reception or many other different types of parties where gay people would be attending (and welcome) - not being enough proves exactly where people's heads are at on this thing. If you actively support someone who is intentionally employing entrapment by virtue of audio recording, getting an enormous amount of accommodation from the host - just not on the tiny last piece, and still sues with their hair on fire...

then you not only don't give a s*** about religious freedom, you actively despise its very existence, and you feel these measures are justified.

[quietfan 233]

Can't wait for the first person that demands he be able to marry his dog. How can anyone refuse him that 'right'?

This and pedophilia/child marriage have always been the most ridiculous red herrings or reductio ad absurdum arguments in the whole anti-gay marriage platform!

There is zero connection, no slippery slope, and no line to be crossed. Marriage must be between consenting adults, capable of giving their informed consent. Except for arranged marriages in other cultures, I've never heard anyone argue otherwise. It has never been considered a right in our culture to force marriage upon an unwilling spouse, regardless of genders. Animals and children cannot give consent, neither can the dead or inanimate objects, for those who might want to marry their couch. Hence no animal, child, or inanimate spouses and no necrophilia. Until a dog can sign a marriage license application, completely meaningless comparison to gay marriage!

So you would deny that persons right to happiness. You _____phobe. If the dog owner signs off on it........

I can't tell for sure if you say that in jest, sarcastically, or are serious.

Either way, you sort of make my point.: You used the term dog "owner". People, including a prospective spouse of the same or different gender, cannot be owned. Brides/husbands/spouses cannot be owned.

No one claims a person has a right to happiness if that happiness is based on owning others, forced marriage, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape, etc. I don't care how happy it might make a man or woman to marry me, they cannot do it without my consent!

So again, until an animal, child, corpse, or object can give informed consent, it's pointless and silly to discuss them as possible marriage partners. They have no place in the gay-marriage debate.

[BamaGrad03 0]

No one claims a person has a right to happiness if that happiness is based on owning others, forced ______

Interesting you use that line. I was about to say the same about one's right to happiness when it steamrolls others religious beliefs. People have all the right to happiness in the world. But when they fight for that happiness under the guise of their happiness having zero effect on mine (which I agree the two could coexist), and then the second they get the right to that happiness they compel me to abandon my happiness - so to facilitate their own happiness...then we gots ourselves a problem.

[AUisAll 2]

Can't wait for the first person that demands he be able to marry his dog. How can anyone refuse him that 'right'?

This and pedophilia/child marriage have always been the most ridiculous red herrings or reductio ad absurdum arguments in the whole anti-gay marriage platform!

There is zero connection, no slippery slope, and no line to be crossed. Marriage must be between consenting adults, capable of giving their informed consent. Except for arranged marriages in other cultures, I've never heard anyone argue otherwise. It has never been considered a right in our culture to force marriage upon an unwilling spouse, regardless of genders. Animals and children cannot give consent, neither can the dead or inanimate objects, for those who might want to marry their couch. Hence no animal, child, or inanimate spouses and no necrophilia. Until a dog can sign a marriage license application, completely meaningless comparison to gay marriage!

So you would deny that persons right to happiness. You _____phobe. If the dog owner signs off on it........

I can't tell for sure if you say that in jest, sarcastically, or are serious.

Either way, you sort of make my point.: You used the term dog "owner". People, including a prospective spouse of the same or different gender, cannot be owned. Brides/husbands/spouses cannot be owned.

No one claims a person has a right to happiness if that happiness is based on owning others, forced marriage, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape, etc. I don't care how happy it might make a man or woman to marry me, they cannot do it without my consent!

So again, until an animal, child, corpse, or object can give informed consent, it's pointless and silly to discuss them as possible marriage partners. They have no place in the gay-marriage debate.

The person here needs a name. I am naming him Joe. Joe wants to marry his dog and claims it is part of his 'pursuit of happiness' and you want to deny him his happiness. It hasn't been named yet but you are a phobe of some type.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I do loathe when we degrade a discussion about gay rights vs religious conscience down to someone marrying their cat. It does nothing to open honest debate.

It's the equivalent of a liberal slapping the bigot tag on someone who dare have even a slightly nuanced position on gay issues or gender issues. Or playing the race card. It's the nuclear option, and basically shuts the discussion down.

[quietfan 233]

I admit, I suspect the couples suing are more interested in making their point than in any actual damages done to them. And I suspect they are not very fond of religious beliefs that condemn homosexuality or gay marriage. I don't know them, so cannot respond with certainty, but my suspicion is that this is mostly a political stunt on their part. Of course, one person's "political stunt" is another's "courageous stand against injustice".

But I also think the farm couple are being somewhat disingenuous, hypocritical, or guilty of promoting double standards. Morally, I don't see much difference between hosting a wedding ceremony and hosting a wedding reception. If it is an affront to God to hold a gay marriage ceremony on their property, I can't see God being any happier or more tolerant of a party to celebrate and honor said marriage!

As for the general topic and law, how is this different from the days of segregated lunch counters and bathrooms? Seems like if the law can tell a private business owner they must serve blacks just as they serve whites, it can also tell them they must serve homosexuals like they do heterosexuals. There are people that oppose racial integration on religious terms, who believed race mixing is against God's teachings. However, I am no specialist in constitutional or civil rights law, so I only mention it for consideration. The situations seem similar to me, but perhaps there are fundamental differences in legal principle I'm unaware of.

[quietfan 233]

Can't wait for the first person that demands he be able to marry his dog. How can anyone refuse him that 'right'?

This and pedophilia/child marriage have always been the most ridiculous red herrings or reductio ad absurdum arguments in the whole anti-gay marriage platform!

There is zero connection, no slippery slope, and no line to be crossed. Marriage must be between consenting adults, capable of giving their informed consent. Except for arranged marriages in other cultures, I've never heard anyone argue otherwise. It has never been considered a right in our culture to force marriage upon an unwilling spouse, regardless of genders. Animals and children cannot give consent, neither can the dead or inanimate objects, for those who might want to marry their couch. Hence no animal, child, or inanimate spouses and no necrophilia. Until a dog can sign a marriage license application, completely meaningless comparison to gay marriage!

So you would deny that persons right to happiness. You _____phobe. If the dog owner signs off on it........

I can't tell for sure if you say that in jest, sarcastically, or are serious.

Either way, you sort of make my point.: You used the term dog "owner". People, including a prospective spouse of the same or different gender, cannot be owned. Brides/husbands/spouses cannot be owned.

No one claims a person has a right to happiness if that happiness is based on owning others, forced marriage, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape, etc. I don't care how happy it might make a man or woman to marry me, they cannot do it without my consent!

So again, until an animal, child, corpse, or object can give informed consent, it's pointless and silly to discuss them as possible marriage partners. They have no place in the gay-marriage debate.

The person here needs a name. I am naming him Joe. Joe wants to marry his dog and claims it is part of his 'pursuit of happiness' and you want to deny him his happiness. It hasn't been named yet but you are a phobe of some type.

Actually, there is a name (sort of) for it: I fear or object to forced marriage, animal cruelty, kidnapping, rape, etc. Call me a "phobe" of those if you like, I proudly admit it.

Suppose I wish to marry Joe's sister/daughter/mom, even though she abhors me. I can't force her without consent, and while it might deny me happiness, no one claims I have that right, personal happiness or not.