Gay Marriage and the Limits of 'Tradition'-

It's weird that you don't understand how stupid and dangerous it is to allow people to randomly decide who they will and will not serve when offering a service open to the public. Your attitude would leave open the possibility that a restaurant could turn away black people, or someone who chose to dye their hair purple. Freedoms are not absolute and must be exercised with responsibility.

 

I would agree with you that public accommodation requires a business that is open to the public be open to all people. But you are trying to confuse a multitude of issues. We are not talking about business owners who denied service to gay customers because they were gay. They denied service for providing goods and services to a ceremony that they opposed due to religious reasons. If your idea of "freedom" can't accommodate religious convictions and freedom of conscious, then you're not really interested in freedom at all. But hey, we've already established at. You want to punish people you hate and will do so in any way the law allows you to.

 

"special rights"

The moment you uttered that phrase, a little piece of sensibility in the universe died.

Queer people have no special rights in the US. We're actually being deprived of equal rights.

 

There were no religious convictions being violated here.

If there are, please feel free to list them.

 

I'm not confusing anything. You are confusing the meaning of "ceremony" with doing their job. How the hell is baking a cake equal to participating in a ceremony? How are their religious convictions and freedoms being violated? I don't hate or wish to punish anyone. It's clear where the hate in emanating from.

 

How do you have the authority to determine what their "job" is?

 

Actually, any business can turn away any person for any reason whatsoever OTHER than race, color, sex, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or transgenderd status. Purple haired people could be excluded all day long.

 

Actually, it not that simple, but you were never one to bring an intellectual dimension to anything, so I'm not surprised that you would dumb it down:

 

Because the cake is used to celebrate in the ceremony. Duh, obviously. That's why the gay couple should have been kind enough to choose to not press legal charges, which while they had the legal rights to do it, does not automatically mean they should do it from a moral perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

That's true. jack Philips said he had no problem selling baked goods to gay customers.

 

Come on!! Kind enough? They were humiliated! And they didn't "press charges" That would apply in a criminal mater. They sued their asses. And why should they be held to a higher moral standard than the baker. You are confused and naïve about morals.

 

We are most certainly are talking about service being denied because they are gay. That denial was based on religious convictions.....problem is that they are not a religious organization and do not have a religious exemption. You keep struggling to rationalize their bigotry, and your own.

 

How do you know that the gay couple sued him because they felt humiliated

I have no respect for people who find any excuse, like using the legal system, to make money. Those people have no morals. There was a recent youtube case where a woman sued a person on youtube for using her song without copyryight permission. She probably didnt get upset her song was in a YT video without permission-that wouldnt bother me-she probably knew the copyright laws and used that as an excuse to sue and make money, because she had the legal right to do it. That's probably the same thing that the gay couple in Colorado did to Jack Philips. Having the legal right to do something doesnt mean its a moral thing to do.

 

Get real. It was not about money. Did they even collect any? It was a case brought before the civil rights commission, not a suit for damages. And as for the owner....as you said....

.

But

so he contradicted himself. "No problem", but....... http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...fter.losing.gay.discrimination.case/37845.htm

Phelps DID NOT have the legal right. Why cant you get that through your head?

 

Moral of the story, don't do things you may get sued for if you don't want to get sued.

Expecting people to live up to your moral standard is extremely naive.

 

You got it backwards, buddy. When a store refuses to do business with homosexuals because they're homosexuals, and break the law in the process, you're the one demonstrating a lack of morality. When you use a copywrited song in a YouTube video without obtaining the consent of the copywrite holder, you are the one demonstrating a lack of morality.

Your morality sensor needs adjustment.

 

never even thought of that angle, people that feel they are not loved and no one wants to marry them would also not want others to marry

 

This isn't the first time that those cases have been discussed on this forum, and one thing that's consistent is that your side will not accept the facts of the case. It's always "We are most certainly are talking about service being denied because they are gay." It really makes the entire exercise pointless because you need, for some weird reason, to substitute the actual situation of the case with your imaginary feelings about it.

 

I forgot the name of the specific youtuber who got sued.

But why would a person get offended just BC somebody didnt ask permission to use a song? They didnt make money off of their work just BC they put it in a video without permission. I dont get why they sued.

 

You don't know that. If you have a YouTube video that gets enough hits, you can in fact get paid for it. Or did you think those ads that precede videos are free?

 

Just because he didnt have the legal right to do something, it doesnt mean he deserved to be sued. If somebody used a song I wrote on youtube w/out my permission and I had a copyright for it, just BC they did something illegal, it doesnt mean I would sue them. However, IF a person copied my song w/out permission and made money off of it, I would sue them, because I would think they deserve to be sued in that situation.

 

How do you know people watched the video because of the song? Michelle Phan used the music of a certain artist in her beauty tutorial videos. I highly doubt people watch the video because of the song.

The only reason she was sued is because people were finding a legal loophole to make money. Taking advantage of what the law says, simply as an excuse to make money, is not moral.

 

At the risk of being repetitive, you need to reset your morality compass. Using someone's copyright without permission is immoral. Suing someone for using your copyright without permission is not. And I'm done with this line of discussion.

 

Michelle Phan was only sued because the copyright owners probably wanted to make money off of a lawsuit, not because they were truly upset she used her song in a beauty tutorial video without their permission.

 

Which is their right. And with that, I really am done. Respond, don't, I don't care, unless you talk about another topic, this is my last post about YouTube and copyrights.

 

It is immoral to sue somebody just for the sake of making money. Suing somebody because they did something that upset you (such as making money off of your music) is not immoral. I highly doubt Michelle Phan was sued because they were upset she used a song without permission. The people just used the legal fact as a loophole/excuse to sue her.

You have such a black and white view of things.