He should have already known that public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation aren't affected by the legality of same sex marriage in a given jurisdiction. I've informed him of that on each and every one of these threads. The New Mexico wedding photographer case, the New Jersey wedding pavilion case, and the Colorado/Oregon bakery cases all happened before each of those states recognized same sex marriages. The only difference between those cases and this one is here no one actually even complained.

quote:

---

The New Mexico wedding photographer case, the New Jersey wedding pavilion case, and the Colorado/Oregon bakery cases all happened before each of those states recognized same sex marriages.

---

So, people were punished for repeating what was the official position of their state at the time. That's crazy!

quote:

---

quote:

---

The New Mexico wedding photographer case, the New Jersey wedding pavilion case, and the Colorado/Oregon bakery cases all happened before each of those states recognized same sex marriages.

---

So, people were punished for repeating what was the official position of their state at the time. That's crazy!

---

I agree to an extent. It is odd to me that the state would find a business refusing service to a person to be unacceptable while at the same time refusing to recognize them as married. Seems a bit "do as I say, not as I do," if you ask me.

That said, the state and the business are really being asked to do two different things. You can individually not "recognize" someone as being married while still selling them a cake. You could photograph my "fake" wedding to a man just as easily as you could photograph a little girl's pretend wedding to her friend in the back yard. You don't have to actually recognize anything as being legitimate or ordained from god to sell a product to person X that you sell to everyone else.

quote:

---

I'm against public accommodation laws too, but not one at a time.

---

lol. If we're going to do something wrong, let's do it right.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm against public accommodation laws too, but not one at a time.

---

lol. If we're going to do something wrong, let's do it right.

---

Or we could do it your way and continue to protect all kinds of snowflakes like you but not those icky gays at the same time. Yay liberty!

It's funny how often gays get accused of wanting special privileges when they only want the same ones others have. Christians actively want privileges themselves while trying to keep them from others.

Christians are far and away the biggest entitled, privileged group in America and nobody else is close

quote:

---

It's funny how often gays get accused of wanting special privileges when they only want the same ones others have.

---

If everyone has them, they wouldn't be special anymore.

quote:

---

Or we could do it your way and continue to protect all kinds of snowflakes like you but not those icky gays at the same time. Yay liberty!

---

My way?

quote:

---

My way?

---

I assume you had something to contribute by mocking my statement. As in, your beliefs on the subject run contrary to mine. Perhaps I am assuming too much, so I'll ask... what are your thoughts on the subject MQB?

quote:

---

Why do you discredit the KJV. I believe it to be the best translation for the English speaking language

---

Because everyone does including Christians. I didn't even realize people still defended the kjb. It's surprisingly bad. Just about any of the modern ones you choose from will be a significant improvement.

quote:

---

I assume you had something to contribute by mocking my statement. As in, your beliefs on the subject run contrary to mine. Perhaps I am assuming too much, so I'll ask... what are your thoughts on the subject MQB?

---

What is the subject? Gay marriage? Public accommodation? The claim that these people are "ministers"? Your joke that if we're going to do something wrong, we better do it wrong well?

quote:

---

What is the subject? Gay marriage? Public accommodation?

---

The actual subject is the latter. Many people have confused it with the former.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I assume you had something to contribute by mocking my statement. As in, your beliefs on the subject run contrary to mine. Perhaps I am assuming too much, so I'll ask... what are your thoughts on the subject MQB?

---

What is the subject? Gay marriage? Public accommodation? The claim that these people are "ministers"? Your joke that if we're going to do something wrong, we better do it wrong well?

---

How exactly am I supposed to take your criticism with anything but a grain of salt when you don't even bother to figure out in what context I made that statement.

So instead of being a hit and run troll, please tell us what your belief on public accommodation laws are, and I think you would be a great person to be the first to answer BB's question regarding public accommodation.

quote:

---

So instead of being a hit and run troll, please tell us what your belief on public accommodation laws are, and I think you would be a great person to be the first to answer BB's question regarding public accommodation.

---

What question? My belief on public accommodation is that they can serve a purpose in limited cases (person shopping at the only grocery store in town), but for the most part they are worthless.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So instead of being a hit and run troll, please tell us what your belief on public accommodation laws are, and I think you would be a great person to be the first to answer BB's question regarding public accommodation.

---

What question? My belief on public accommodation is that they can serve a purpose in limited cases (person shopping at the only grocery store in town), but for the most part they are worthless.

---

Thanks. I think I tend to agree with that opinion -- that for the most part they serve little purpose, but do probably help somewhat in more rural or small towns. I was wrong because I had you pegged for one of the many on the thread who have stated they are against all accommodation laws, but do not respond to BB. His question wouldn't really apply to you because you state there are value in these laws in limited cases. His question was targeted to those that want to strike down all public accommodation laws. He asked would they support striking down only the religious protections of that law, independent of all the laws being struck down at once.

My own opinion is in that same ballpark, Martin. My question is whether you would favor repealing only the religious protection from PA laws. But if you're in favor of scrapping them entirely for the most part, you're probably not my target audience anyway.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So instead of being a hit and run troll, please tell us what your belief on public accommodation laws are, and I think you would be a great person to be the first to answer BB's question regarding public accommodation.

---

What question? My belief on public accommodation is that they can serve a purpose in limited cases (person shopping at the only grocery store in town), but for the most part they are worthless.

---

Thanks. I think I tend to agree with that opinion -- that for the most part they serve little purpose, but do probably help somewhat in more rural or small towns. I was wrong because I had you pegged for one of the many on the thread who have stated they are against all accommodation laws, but do not respond to BB. His question wouldn't really apply to you because you state there are value in these laws in limited cases. His question was targeted to those that want to strike down all public accommodation laws. He asked would they support striking down only the religious protections of that law, independent of all the laws being struck down at once.

---

Sorry if I was unclear. I was actually targeting it toward those who haven't expressed whether they'd scrap them all. My thoughts are that position is at least consistent. I was asking people who adamantly oppose them for sexual orientation, but repeatedly duck the fact that their religion is protected by the very same laws. I was just wanting to see if they would say they believe they should be entitled to special treatment under the very laws they claim to be so fascist and anti-American in nature. So far it's just been crickets.

I'm not a lawmaker so I have no idea how you would make a good public accommodation law. Protected classes do not need to be defined though. If you are the only supplier of food in the area, I believe it is your duty to supply that food to all people barring some legitimate reason to not serve them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So instead of being a hit and run troll, please tell us what your belief on public accommodation laws are, and I think you would be a great person to be the first to answer BB's question regarding public accommodation.

---

What question? My belief on public accommodation is that they can serve a purpose in limited cases (person shopping at the only grocery store in town), but for the most part they are worthless.

---

Thanks. I think I tend to agree with that opinion -- that for the most part they serve little purpose, but do probably help somewhat in more rural or small towns. I was wrong because I had you pegged for one of the many on the thread who have stated they are against all accommodation laws, but do not respond to BB. His question wouldn't really apply to you because you state there are value in these laws in limited cases. His question was targeted to those that want to strike down all public accommodation laws. He asked would they support striking down only the religious protections of that law, independent of all the laws being struck down at once.

---

Sorry if I was unclear. I was actually targeting it toward those who haven't expressed whether they'd scrap them all. My thoughts are that position is at least consistent. I was asking people who adamantly oppose them for sexual orientation, but repeatedly duck the fact that their religion is protected by the very same laws. I was just wanting to see if they would say they believe they should be entitled to special treatment under the very laws they claim to be so fascist and anti-American in nature. So far it's just been crickets.

---

I see. I had gotten the impression that because the "scrap them all crowd" is fine with scrapping the protections for gays that you were trying to see if they really are for any incremental increase in liberty or if they, like me, would only take that deal if it applied to all equally. Sorry for misreading your point.

quote:

---

I'm not a lawmaker so I have no idea how you would make a good public accommodation law. Protected classes do not need to be defined though. If you are the only supplier of food in the area, I believe it is your duty to supply that food to all people barring some legitimate reason to not serve them.

---

What if two gays are fueling up for a gay sex marathon in their wedding night. Do you feed them?

quote:

---

My own opinion is in that same ballpark, Martin. My question is whether you would favor repealing only the religious protection from PA laws. But if you're in favor of scrapping them entirely for the most part, you're probably not my target audience anyway.

---

I doubt repealing PA laws for religion would have much affect on Christians in Texas. I have no idea what the nationwide impact would be but you see things like chic fil a reporting record sales days after anti-gay marriage comments. Id think the PR backlash on refusing Christians service would be astronomical compared to gay people.

To answer your question specifically I wouldn't be "in favor" of removing religion from PA laws but if it happened I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

First, thank you for being the first to answer.

What I find odd is that you readily admit there's virtually no need for it, but you still want preferential treatment in this way anyway.

Baffling. You dint even think PA laws would do anything for you but want them anyway.

Should PA laws cover gays?

quote:

---

First, thank you for being the first to answer.

What I find odd is that you readily admit there's virtually no need for it, but you still want preferential treatment in this way anyway.

---

I don't want preferential treatment and in fact id prefer to know which businesses would refuse me service if they were allowed to by law that way they don't get any more money from me.

quote:

---

Baffling. You dint even think PA laws would do anything for you but want them anyway.

Should PA laws cover gays?

---

Absolutely as it's obvious they are being denied services with laws in place. It'd probably be worse if there weren't laws

quote:

---

Baffling. You dint even think PA laws would do anything for you but want them anyway.

Should PA laws cover gays?

---

They should cover everyone. There is no need to create "special" groups within society.

Cool. I can respect supporting all PA laws. It's consistent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Baffling. You dint even think PA laws would do anything for you but want them anyway.

Should PA laws cover gays?

---

They should cover everyone. There is no need to create "special" groups within society.

---

This would mean businesses can't refuse anybody for any reason.

No it doesn't. PA laws today are too broad.

quote:

---

No it doesn't. PA laws today are too broad.

---

You say this and also say they should cover everyone.

It makes no sense.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Baffling. You dint even think PA laws would do anything for you but want them anyway.

Should PA laws cover gays?

---

Absolutely as it's obvious they are being denied services with laws in place. It'd probably be worse if there weren't laws

---

Ok I can support this since it's consistent. Does this apply even in the wedding cake/wedding venue(not church)/wedding photographer context?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No it doesn't. PA laws today are too broad.

---

You say this and also say they should cover everyone.

It makes no sense.

---

This. If they're too broad now without covering everyone, how can they cover everyone without being even broader (the broadest, actually)?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Baffling. You dint even think PA laws would do anything for you but want them anyway.

Should PA laws cover gays?

---

Absolutely as it's obvious they are being denied services with laws in place. It'd probably be worse if there weren't laws

---

Ok I can support this since it's consistent. Does this apply even in the wedding cake/wedding venue(not church)/wedding photographer context?

---

Yes it applies to those situations too. I get that people don't want to support it however it's just a cake and/or pictures. Guaranteed every cake they've ever sold has been to someone that has committed sin, no need to single that person out over others.

As long as the gov. doesn't force the church to marry same sex couples I don't see an issue.

quote:

---

Yes it applies to those situations too. I get that people don't want to support it however it's just a cake and/or pictures. Guaranteed every cake they've ever sold has been to someone that has committed sin, no need to single that person out over others.

As long as the gov. doesn't force the church to marry same sex couples I don't see an issue.

---

quote:

---

You say this and also say they should cover everyone.

It makes no sense.

---

All public accommodation businesses everywhere for any reason is too broad. A person should not be denied the only food source within the area for his sustenance. Special groups within society do not need to be defined to accomplish that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You say this and also say they should cover everyone.

It makes no sense.

---

All public accommodation businesses everywhere for any reason is too broad. A person should not be denied the only food source within the area for his sustenance. Special groups within society do not need to be defined to accomplish that.

---

so public accommodation laws should only apply to places that sell food?

food places can only deny to serve people in excess of what is necessary to sustain them?

I do not understand what your position is